alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TABLE 3-2

NOx Control Cost Comparison (Updated September 2011)

Reid Gardner Station Unit 1

Factor LNB w/OFA 

LNB w/OFA & 

SNCR ROFA w/Rotamix

LNB w/OFA & 

SCR ROFA w/SCR

Total Installed Capital Costs $5.0 Million $7.9 Million $11.0 Million $39.8 Million $43.6 Million

Total First Year Fixed and Variable O&M Costs $0.1 Million $0.4 Million $0.6 Million $1.1 Million $1.4 Million

Total First Year Annualized Cost $0.6 Million $1.3 Million $1.6 Million $5.3 Million $6.0 Million

Power Consumption (MW) - 0.10 0.75 0.66 1.41

Annual Power Usage (Million kW-Hr/Yr) - 0.8 5.6 5.0 10.6

NOx Design Control Efficiency 21.3% 40.9% 57.7% 81.6% 81.6%

Tons NOx Removed per Year 346 665 938 1,327 1,327

First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton of NOx Removed) 1,800 1,889 1,910 3,982 4,505

Incremental Control Cost ($/Ton of NOx Removed) 1,800 1,986 1,962 8,989 0

O&M = operations and maintenance

The incremental control cost for ROFA w/SCR when compared with LNB w/OFA & SCR results in a non number as the two technologies have the same NOx removal 

in tons/year
TABLE 3-2

NOx Control Cost Comparison (Updated September 2011)

Reid Gardner Station Unit 2

Factor LNB w/OFA

LNB w/OFA & 

SNCR ROFA w/Rotamix

LNB w/OFA & 

SCR ROFA w/SCR

Total Installed Capital Costs $5.0 Million $7.9 Million $11.0 Million $39.8 Million $43.6 Million

Total First Year Fixed and Variable O&M Costs $0.1 Million $0.4 Million $0.7 Million $1.1 Million $1.4 Million

Total First Year Annualized Cost $0.6 Million $1.3 Million $1.6 Million $5.3 Million $6.1 Million

Power Consumption (MW) - 0.10 0.75 0.66 1.41

Annual Power Usage (Million kW-Hr/Yr) - 0.8 6.1 5.4 11.6

NOx Design Control Efficiency 23.7% 42.7% 59.0% 82.2% 82.2%

Tons NOx Removed per Year 414 749 1,034 1,439 1,439

First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton of NOx Removed) 1,501 1,709 1,780 3,703 4,203

Incremental Control Cost ($/Ton of NOx Removed) 1,501 1,968 1,967 8,606 0

O&M = operations and maintenance

The incremental control cost for ROFA w/SCR when compared with LNB w/OFA & SCR results in a non number as the two technologies have the same NOx removal 

in tons/year
TABLE 3-2

NOx Control Cost Comparison (Updated September 2011)

Reid Gardner Station Unit 3

Factor LNB w/OFA

LNB w/OFA & 

SNCR ROFA w/Rotamix

LNB w/OFA & 

SCR ROFA w/SCR

Total Installed Capital Costs $5.0 Million $7.9 Million $11.0 Million $39.8 Million $43.6 Million

Total First Year Fixed and Variable O&M Costs $0.1 Million $0.4 Million $0.6 Million $1.0 Million $1.4 Million

Total First Year Annualized Cost $0.6 Million $1.2 Million $1.5 Million $5.3 Million $6.0 Million

Power Consumption (MW) - 0.10 0.75 0.66 1.41

Annual Power Usage (Million kW-Hr/Yr) - 0.8 5.9 5.3 11.2

NOx Design Control Efficiency 6.5% 29.9% 38.3% 78.2% 78.2%

Tons NOx Removed per Year 95 434 556 1,136 1,136

First Year Average Control Cost ($/Ton of NOx Removed) 6,547 2,779 3,095 4,626 5,268

Incremental Control Cost ($/Ton of NOx Removed) 6,547 1,724 4,219 6,097 0

O&M = operations and maintenance

The incremental control cost for ROFA w/SCR when compared with LNB w/OFA & SCR results in a non number as the two technologies have the same NOx removal 

in tons/year
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           5,078
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,114
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (456)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,348
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,947
<PP&E>                                         619,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               (298,611)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 339,495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,741
<BONDS>                                        135,278
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         32
<COMMON>                                           160
<OTHER-SE>                                     174,449
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   339,495
<SALES>                                         36,507
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,102
<CGS>                                           28,661
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,511
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,867
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (276)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (276)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (276)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Kermit RICHARDS, III, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7090

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 21, 2017

Decided: December 28, 2017

Edward Kermit Richards, III, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Sutherland Clark, Seema Mittal, Christopher John Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Edward Kermit Richards, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude' that Richards has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 64

To recognize and honor the Filipino World War II veterans for their defense

of democratic ideals and their important contribution to the outcome

of World War II.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 13, 1996

Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. AKAKA) submitted the following concurrent

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To recognize and honor the Filipino World War II veterans

for their defense of democratic ideals and their important

contribution to the outcome of World War II.

Whereas the Commonwealth of the Philippines was strategically located and thus vital to the defense of the United

States during World War II;

Whereas the military forces of the Commonwealth of the

Philippines were called into the United States Armed

Forces during World War II by Executive order and were

put under the command of General Douglas MacArthur;

Whereas the participation of the military forces of the Commonwealth of the Philippines in the battles of Bataan

and Corregidor and in other smaller skirmishes delayed
2

•SCON 64 IS

and disrupted the initial Japanese effort to conquer the

Western Pacific;

Whereas that delay and disruption allowed the United States

the vital time to prepare the forces which were needed to

drive the Japanese from the Western Pacific and to defeat Japan;

Whereas after the recovery of the Philippine Islands from

Japan, the United States was able to use the strategically

located Commonwealth of the Philippines as a base from

which to launch the final efforts to defeat Japan;

Whereas every American deserves to know the important contribution that the military forces of the Commonwealth of

the Philippines made to the outcome of World War II;

and

Whereas the Filipino World War II veterans deserve recognition and honor for their important contribution to the

outcome of World War II: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the

3 President should issue a proclamation which recognizes

4 and honors the Filipino World War II veterans for their

5 defense of democratic ideals and their important contribu6 tion to the outcome of World War II.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6764 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6764

  To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to modify the 
  HIPAA privacy regulation with respect to the disclosure of certain 
                     protected health information.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 13, 2023

  Mr. Neguse introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to modify the 
  HIPAA privacy regulation with respect to the disclosure of certain 
                     protected health information.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Patient Privacy and Caregiver 
Awareness Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF HIPAA PRIVACY REGULATION.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
enactment of this section, the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
shall revise the HIPAA privacy regulation to require that, if an 
individual (or a personal representative of the individual or another 
person responsible for the care of the individual) provides consent in 
accordance with such regulation for a covered entity to use or disclose 
any protected health information of the individual that is related to a 
mental health condition or a substance use disorder--
            (1) the authorization with respect to such use or 
        disclosure shall have an expiration date that is not less than 
        2 years after the date on which such consent is provided; and
            (2) the covered entity shall provide the individual (and, 
        in the case that such consent is provided by a personal 
        representative or another person responsible for the care of 
        the individual, such personal representative or person so 
        responsible) with written notice of the expiration of such 
        authorization not later than the date that is 30 days before 
        such expiration date.
    (b) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply:
            (1) HIPAA privacy regulation.--The term ``HIPAA privacy 
        regulation'' has the meaning given such term in section 
        1180(b)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-
        9(b)(3)).
            (2) HIPAA terms.--The terms ``authorization'', ``covered 
        entity'', and ``protected health information'' have the 
        meanings given such terms for purposes of the HIPAA privacy 
        regulation.
                                 <all>
```
# pennsylvania
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SECRETARY

June 21, 2013

Mr. Shawn M. Garvin Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region III 1650 Arch Street (Mail Code: 3RAOO) Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 Dear Mr. Garvin: In accordance with Section 172 ofthe Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 

### § 7502, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is submitting to EPA for approval a revisionto the State Implementation Plan (SIP) pertaining to the attainment demonstration for the 2006 fine particulate matter (PMz 5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the LibertyClairtonPM2.5 nonattainment area. This "partial" county PMz.s nonattainment area includes the City ofClairton and the Glassport, Liberty, Lincoln and Port Vue boroughs inAllegheny County. The Liberty-Clairton PM2.5 nonattainment area was designated byEPA as a separate, local-source impacted nonattainment area for the 1997 and 2006 PM25 health-based standards in April2005 andNovember 2009, respectively. The SIP submittal includes one hard copy and one CD, consisting ofthe following documents: 1) An attainment demonstration and base year inventory, analysis ofreasonably available control measures, and a description ofcontingency measures that will be implementedto bring the area back into attainment should violations ofthe 2006 PM2.s NAAQS occur after the standard is attained; 2) Certification ofpublic participation activities and proofofpublication ofpublic hearing notices; 3) Technical appendices (appendices consisting ofdata files are provided in electronic form only); and 4) The comment and response document. I certify that the electronic files are exact duplicates ofthe hard copies. This SIP revision is identified as revision 75 for the Allegheny County HealthDepartment's (ACHD) internal tracking purposes. The ACHD is a local health agency organized under Local Health Administration Law, Act 315 ofAugust 24, 1951, P.L. 1304, as amended, whose powers and duties include the enforcement of laws relating to public health within Allegheny County. The ACHD has an air pollution control programthat has been approved by DEP in accordance with Section 12 ofthe Air Pollution Control Act.
Rachel Carson State Office Building 1 P.O. Box 2063 I Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063 717.787.2814 l5'z Printed on Recycled Paper

## Q;C/ www.depweb.state.pa.usMr. 

### Shawn M. Garvin -2-


### The public commentperiod for the SIP revisionbegan January 18,2013, and ended March 5, 2013. A public hearing was held onFebruary 19,2013. Comments were addressed in a comment and response document, which is included inthis submittal. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should youhave any questions concerning this SIP revision, please contact Joyce E. Epps, Director ofAir Quality, by e-mail atjeepps@pa.gov or by telephone at 717.787.9702. You may also contactJames E. Thompson, ACHD's Air Quality Program Manager, by e-mail atjthompson@achd.net or by telephone at 412.578.8103. Sincerely,

E. Christopher Abruzzo Acting Secretary Enclosure
**EXHIBIT 32.1**CERTIFICATION OF ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-KPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, in connection with the filing of Stewart & Stevenson LLC’s (the “Company”) Annual Report onForm 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned officer certifies that: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periodspresented in the Report.Date:April 29, 2008         By:                                                                                 /s/  ROBERT L. HARGRAVE    **Robert L. Hargrave**    **Chief Executive Officer**
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 5 D0 04 4 . KENNETH BEAMON v . THE STATE.

Pri s o n er Ken net h Beam o n s o u g h t t o p ro ceed i n fo rm a p au p eri s t o ch an g e h i s

n am e fro m Ken net h Ray s h au n Beam o n t o Ken n et h Ray s h au n Sh ab azz. T h e t ri al

co u rt di s m is s ed t h e p lead i n g un d er OCGA § 9 -1 5 -2 (d ) b as ed up o n Beam o n ’ s fai l u re

t o es t ab l i s h v en u e an d ju ri s d i ct i o n an d fai l u re t o i n cl ud e a p ro p er pau per’ s affi d av i t

.

Beam o n fi l ed an ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p ea l f r o m t h i s ru l in g

. 1 A l t h o u g h

Beam o n i n cl u ded a co py of t h e t ri al co urt ’ s o rd er, i t was no t a s t am p ed “ fi l ed ” co py

as req u i red b y Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru l e 3 1 (e).

W i t h o u t t h e s t am

p ed “ fi l ed ” co p y o f t h e o rd er, we can n o t as cert ai n i f t h e

ap p li c a t i o n was fi l ed wi t h i n 3 0 d ay s

, wh i ch i s a ju ri s di ct i o n al req u i rem en t

. See

OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (d ); Bo

yl e v. S t a t e o

f Ga

. , 1 9 0 Ga. Ap p

. 7 3 4 (3 8 0 SE2 d 5 7 ) (1 9 8 9 ).

Acco rd in g ly

, o n Sep t em ber 1 0

, 2 01 4

, we o rd ered Beam o n t o s u p p l em en t h i s

ap p li cat io n wi t h i n t en day s wi t h a s tam ped “ fi l ed ” co p y o f t h e o rd er t o b e ap p eal ed

.

W e p ro vi d ed t hat fai l u re t o co m p l y wi t h t h is di rect i v e wo u l d res u l t i n d i s m i s s al o f t h e

ap p li cat io n

. Beam o n h as n o t s u b m i t t ed a s t am p ed “ fi l ed ” co p y o f t h e o rd er, an d m o re

t h an t en d ay s h av e p as s ed s i n ce t h e Sep tem ber 1 0

, 2 0 1 4 o rd er. A c c o r d i n g l y

,

Beam o n ’ s ap p l i cat i on i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

1 Beam o n fi l ed h i s ap p l i cat i o n t o t h e Su p rem e Co u rt

, wh i ch t ran sferred t h e

m at t er t o t h i s Co u rt

. October 01, 2014C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 10/01/2014
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 48969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20115]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Friday September 7, 2012.

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance and Enforcement Matters. In the 
event that the times or dates of these or any future meetings change, 
an announcement of the change, along with the new time and place of the 
meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-20115 Filed 8-13-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
      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)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting; or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;c)
    
    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; andd)
    
    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
  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 information;
andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ William J. HemeltWilliam J. HemeltActing President and Chief Operating Officer
and Chief Financial Officer
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 45

A resolution authorizing the use of the Capitol Rotunda on May 2, 1996,

for the presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal to Reverend and

Mrs. Billy Graham.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 12, 1996

Mr. DOLE (for himself and Mr. HELMS) submitted the following concurrent

resolution; which was considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

A resolution authorizing the use of the Capitol Rotunda

on May 2, 1996, for the presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal to Reverend and Mrs. Billy Graham.

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That the rotunda of the United States Cap3 itol is hereby authorized to be used on May 2, 1996, at

4 2 o’clock post meridian for the presentation of the Con5 gressional Gold Medal to Reverend and Mrs. Billy Gra6 ham. Physical preparations for the conduct of the cere7 mony shall be carried out in accordance with such condi8 tions as may be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol.

Æ
# L_2005103DE.01004101.xml

| 22.4.2005 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 103/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2005

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 103/41

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 611/2005 der Kommission vom 20. April 2005 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 823/2000 des Rates zur Anwendung von Artikel 81 Absatz 3 EG-Vertrag auf bestimmte Gruppen von Vereinbarungen, Beschlüssen und aufeinander abgestimmten Verhaltensweisen zwischen Seeschifffahrtsunternehmen (Konsortien)

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 101 vom 21. April 2005
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 101 vom 21. April 2005

Seite 11, Unterschrift:

anstatt:

„Für die Kommission

Neelie KROES

Mitglied der Kommission“

muss es heißen:

„Für die Kommission

José Manuel BARROSO

Präsident“.

---