alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Discussion of OAQPS Cost Manua l Method for AQCS Estimation Appx. C Details of Cost Calculation Using OAQPS Cost Manual

Question 2 : What is the design basis for th e SCR project(s) in Appendix C used to scale costs for San Juan in the 7/11/07 cost estimate? Please in clude the catalyst pitch, catalyst volume, catalyst wall thickness, initial oxida tion rate per layer, guaranteed NO x outlet, NO x reduction percentage, design coal , and guaranteed catalyst life.

Response : The catalyst sizing for this project was scaled from another B&V project called Harding Street Unit 7. This project had two quotes that were reviewed in doing our scaling for the PNM BART project--one quote was for 427 m 3 and the other was for 434 m 3 . We have found one of the quotes, and are attaching it to this response as Attachment 1. Unfortunately, the quote included is the larger catalyst volume of the two quotes (434 m 3 ) and scaling calculation used the smaller catalyst volume. At this time, we can not locate the quote for 427 m 3 catalyst volume.

To complete the scaling calculation the following information was considered: Harding Street Unit 7 is a 460 MW unit with a heat input of 4,716 MBtu/hr. The flue gas flow rate for the unit is 2,400,052 acfm (4,613,433 lb/hr). Information on the Harding Street fuel is include d as Attachment 2.

For each unit, the catalyst volume was scaled from the flow rate.

For example, for Unit 3, the calculation of catalyst volume was performed as follows:

3 6.0 6.0

496

__ 052,400,2 239,082,3 427

__ __ __

___ __

m volume catalyst PNM volume catalyst PNM rateflow Harding rateflow

PNM Volume Catalyst Street Harding volume catalyt PNM

= ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

×= ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

=

From this calculation, the volume was multiplied by a unit cost of catalyst of $6,500/m 3 (as explained on page 22 of the OAQPS docum ent). As previously noted, the smaller catalyst volume quote (427 m 3 ) is not available at this time. However, if the larger catalyst volume (434 m 3 ) is used in the same calculation (Attachment 1), the resultant cost would be approximately $52,000 higher.

10/12/10 B&V E-21c 1
**Exhibit 23****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on FormS-8 (Registration Nos. 33-38614 and 333-41352) of Raven Industries, Inc. of our report dated March23, 2006 relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, which appears in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated in this AnnualReport on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March23, 2006 relating to the financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
DEP Home About DEP Programs Contact Site Map Search

Programs

Coastal & 

Aquatic 

Home

Aquatic 

Preserves

National 

Estuarine 

Research 

Reserves

Florida Keys 

National 

Marine 

Sanctuary

Coral Reef 

Conservation 

Program

Information

About Us

Contacts

Public 

Notices

Related 

Programs

Florida 

Oceans 

Council

Gulf of 

Mexico 

Program

Gulf of 

Mexico 

Alliance

LIFE 

Program

Water Quality Monitoring at St. Joseph Bay Aquatic Preserve Quick Topics

Management activities at St. Joseph Bay Aquatic Preserve have been 

discontinued as of July 1, 2011. This page describes one of the 

former ecosystem science programs which will be restarted should 

revenue streams improve. 

The water quality monitoring 

program utilized several 

methods to record the bay s 

water characteristics. Over time, 

baseline data is used as a tool 

for managing the water quality 

in the bay. 

The preserve partnered with the 

University of Florida s 

LakeWatch program to monitor 

nutrients in the bay and 

document: 

total nitrogen and 

phosphorous levels, 

algae content, and 

water clarity. 

Results indicated the need to 

identify sources of pollution in 

specific areas of the bay. 

The preserve used dataloggers 

to monitor water quality. Two 

stations in the bay continuously 

monitored:

dissolved oxygen

salinity

temperature

conductivity

pH

turbidity

water level

A datalogger sited on a dock.

This data was used to identify trends in water quality and allowed the 

preserve to track environmental changes in the ecosystem. 

Meteorological data was collected monthly by the weather station, 

and correlated with the water quality monitoring data. 

In 2005, due to the increased occurrence of red tide (Karenia brevis) 

in St. Joseph Bay, the preserve partnered with the Fish and Wildlife 

Research Institute to begin collecting water samples to measure 

concentrations of brevitoxins and domoic acid. The data was used to 

determine what time of year these numbers may escalate or be 

absent. 

More information on the Water Quality Monitoring Program at St. 

Joseph Bay Aquatic Preserve is available in the St. Joseph Bay 

Aquatic Preserve Management Plan. 

St. Joseph Bay Aquatic 

Preserve

Quick Facts

Description of Site

Recreation

Resources

Management

Ecosystem Science

Resource Management

Education and Outreach

Public Use

Issues

Management Plan

Maps and Other Publications

Volunteering

 

Water Quality Monitoring Stations 

Map

Last updated: July 07, 2011

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard M.S. 235 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 850-245-2094 (phone) / 850-245-2110 (fax) 

Contact Us 

DEP Home | About DEP | Contact Us | Search | Site Map 

Water Quality Monitoring at St. Joseph Bay Aquatic Preserve Page 1 of 1

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/sites/stjoseph/science/water.htm 8/31/2011
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 Refac Optical Group,
a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), each of J. David Pierson, as Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and Raymond A. Cardonne, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his
knowledge:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ J. David Pierson
----------------------
J. David Pierson
Chief Executive Officer
March 31, 2006


/s/Raymond A. Cardonne
----------------------
Raymond A. Cardonne, Jr.
Senior Vice President and CFO
March 31, 2006


      This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
No. 12-5049.

#### Beard *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 12

PUBLIC
SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA Computation of Ratios of Earnings
to Fixed Charges(in thousands except ratio data)

|                                            | Year Ended December 31,
|------------------------------------------- | -----------------------
|
|Earnings:                                   |                        
|Net Income                                  |                        
|Plus Federal Income Taxes                   |                        
|Plus State Income Taxes                     |                        
|Plus Provision for Deferred Income Taxes    |                        
|Plus Deferred Investment Tax Credits        |                        
|Plus Fixed Charges (as below)               |                        
|                                            |                        
|Total Earnings                              |                        
|                                            |                        
|Fixed Charges:                              |                        
|Interest on Long-term Debt                  |                        
|Interest on Short-term Debt                 |                        
|Distributions on Trust Preferred Securities |                        
|Estimated Interest Element in Lease Rentals |                        
|                                            |                        
|Total Fixed Charges                         |                        
|                                            |                        
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges          |                        
|                                            |                        
|                                            |                        

Certain amounts have been
reclassified between interest on short-term and long-term debt compared to periods prior
to January 1, 2002. This reclassification had no affect on the ratio.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17E0030. JAMES v. ATLANTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL SYSTEM et al.

On December 30, 2016, the trial court denied Shondylon James’ petition for

writ of certiorari, motion for leave to add parties and partial motion for summary

judgment, and granted summary judgment to the defendants, the Atlanta Independent

School System and the Atlanta Board of Education on James’ claims related to

violations of the Georgia Open Records Act. On January 18, 2017, this Court

received and docketed James’ emergency motion for an extension of time to file her

application for discretionary appeal, which is due to be filed in this Court on January

30, 2017. See Court of Appeals Rule 16 (c) (“Requests for extensions of time to file

discretionary applications must be directed to this Court and should be filed pursuant

to Rule 40 (b), Emergency Motions.”)

ThisCourt having reviewed the motion, in which James contends, among other

things, the unavailability of certain transcripts and pending court actions, and upon

review of the order being appealed, the request for an extension of time to file an

application for discretionary appeal is hereby DENIED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

January 20, 2017

01/20/2017
<PAGE>   1

Board of Directors
Multi-Color Corporation

As stated in item 1 to the condensed consolidated financial statements of
Multi-Color Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 28, 1998, the
Company changed its accounting policy to encompass a more complete absorption of
overhead costs in inventory. Management believes the newly adopted accounting
principle is preferable in the circumstances, as the method more fairly
represents the results of the Company's operations by matching the full cost of
the inventory with the revenues generated. At your request, we have reviewed and
discussed with management the circumstances, business judgment, and planning
that formed the basis for making this change in accounting principle.

It should be recognized that professional standards have not been established
for selecting among alternative principles that exist in this area or for
evaluating the preferability of alternative accounting principles. Accordingly,
we are furnishing this letter solely for purposes of the Company's compliance
with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and it should
not be used or relied on for any other purpose.

Based on our review and discussion, we concur with management's judgment that
the newly adopted accounting principle is preferable in the circumstances. In
formulating this position, we are relying on management's business planning and
judgment, which we do not find unreasonable.

We have not audited any consolidated financial statements of Multi-Color
Corporation as of any date or for any period subsequent to March 29, 1998.
Accordingly, we are unable to express an opinion on whether the method of
accounting for the effect of the change is in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles or if the financial information included in Part I of this
Form 10-Q is fairly presented.

Very truly yours,



GRANT THORNTON LLP
Cincinnati, Ohio
July 14, 1998
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7413

NATHANIEL H. JONES, a/k/a Nathaniel Hampton

Jones, a/k/a Nathaniel Jones, a/k/a Nathaniel

Hampton,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY MCMASTER,

Attorney General of South Carolina,

 Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-04-1768-2)

Submitted: November 14, 2005 Decided: December 7, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel H. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Nathaniel H. Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

We dismiss the appeal as duplicative because this court disposed of

prior appeals from this same order. See Jones v. South Carolina,

141 F. App’x 161 (4th Cir. 2005) (unpublished). We deny Jones’s

motion for a certificate of appealability as unnecessary. 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
<PAGE> 1
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


               EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS



                                                                                                
                                                                Three Months Ended
                                                                     March 31
(in thousands, except per share data)                          1999           1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic:                                                                                          
-----
<S>                                                          <C>             <C>   
Average shares outstanding                                     24,294         24,341
                                                             ========        =======
Net Income                                                   $ 10,325        $ 9,305
                                                             ========        =======
Per Share Amount                                             $   0.43        $  0.38
                                                             ========        =======

Diluted:
-------

Average shares outstanding                                     24,294         24,341 
                                                             --------        -------
Net effect of dilutive stock options based
  on the treasury stock method using the
  average market price or quarter end price,
  whichever is greater                                            896          1,151
                                                             --------        -------
               Total Shares Outstanding                        25,190         25,492
                                                             ========        =======
Net Income                                                   $ 10,325        $ 9,305
                                                             ========        =======
Per Share Amount                                             $   0.41        $  0.37 
                                                             --------        -------

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10 a.m.

# PLACE: 

                        Hybrid meeting: 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC (12th floor) and                               ( print page 19924)                            virtual.                         *Note:*                         due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the FEC's hearing room remains closed to visitors for the near term as we implement procedures for the public to safely attend. If you would like to access the meeting, see the instructions below.                    

# STATUS: 

The April 7, 2022 Open Meeting has been canceled.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Judith Ingram, Press Officer Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.

Laura E. Sinram,

Acting Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2022-07439 Filed 4-4-22; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-50362

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GERALD JOE HENSON,

also known as Jerry Henson,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-95-CR-154-6-JN

--------------------

October 25, 2001

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gerald Joe Henson, federal inmate # 13118-064, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2)

motion for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Henson contends

that the district court erred by construing his motion as a 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Henson wishes to challenge his indictment

pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), because

the indictment did not allege a $61 million tax loss, obstruction

of justice, and the printing of counterfeit securities. 
No. 01-50362

-2-

Our review of the district court’s dismissal for lack of

jurisdiction is de novo. See Hager v. NationsBank N.A., 167 F.3d

245, 247 (5th Cir. 1999). Regardless of the label Henson affixed

to his motion, it challenges the constitutionality of his

sentence as imposed by the district court and was properly

construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Tolliver v. Dobre,

211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Rich, 141

F.3d 550, 551 (5th Cir. 1998). Because the motion filed

purportedly under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2) was properly

construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, Henson was

required to obtain this court’s authorization to file it. 28

U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255. Henson did not obtain 

authorization, and the district court properly dismissed the

motion for lack of jurisdiction. The district court’s dismissal

is AFFIRMED.
| (3)   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (4)   | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  DATE:      May 4, 2010 |        /s/ David A. Garrison                             |
|------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         | David      A. Garrison                                        |
|                         | Executive      Vice President andChief      Financial Officer |

----
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 


1021 NORTH GRAND AVENUE EAST, P.O. Box19276, SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS62794-9276. (217)782-2829 

PAT QUINN, GOVERNOR LISA BONNETT, DIRECTOR 

October 22, 2013 

Ms Susan Hedman 

Regional Administrator 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 5 

77 West Jackson Boulevard 

Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590 

Dear Ms Hedman: 

The purpose ofthis letter is to convey the support ofIllinois regarding the listing ofthe Estech 

Site, located in Calumet City, Illinois, on the National Priorities List. 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agencys evaluation ofthe Estech Site shows that past disposal 

practices have resulted in uncontrolled releases ofhazardous substances to the environment that 

pose unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. 

The State of Illinois supports the inclusion ofthe Estech Site in the next proposed update to the 

National Priorities List. 

Sincerely, 

Director 

4302 N. tkin St., Rockford, IL 61103 (815} 987-7760 

595 S. State, Elgin, ll 60123 (847) 608-3131 

2125 S. First St., Olompoign, IL 61820 (217) 278-5800 

2009 Moll St., Collinsville, IL 62234 (618) 346-5120 

9511 Harrison St., Des Plaines, IL 60016 {847) 294-4000 

5407 N. University St., Arbor 1 13, Peoria, IL 61614 (309) 693-5462 

2309 W. Mohi St., Suite 116, Morion, IL 62959 (618) 993-7200 

100 W. Randolph, Suite 10-300, Chicago, !l 60601 (312) 814-6026 

PLEASE PRINT ON RECTO.EDPAPER