alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DoT- 057- I 9 Y. -? 7 0 b

February 11,2015

'. UINTAI-! COUNTY

~TAT£OF UTAI!

Owr, PoJ,t (J, Tk No1bx£A Fri1iuw

COMMISSIONERS:

Michael J. McKee

William C. Stringer

Marl< D. Raymond

ASSESSOR • Barbara Simper

ATTORNEY - G. Marl<Thomas

CLERK-AUDITOR • Michael W. Wilkins

RECORDER - Brenda McDonald

TREASURER • Wend! Long

SHERIFF - Vance Norton

SURVEYOR • John Slaugh

Dennis J. DeVaney, Chief

Office of Aviation Analysis

U. S. Department of Transportation

400 Seventh Street, S. W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. DeVaney:

On Tuesday, February 3"',2015, in a joint Vernal CitylUintah County meeting, the Essential Air Service (BAS) choices

proposed by the Department of Transportation were carefully considered. Boutique Air is not a suitable option for Uintah

County, so by default the group selected Great Lakes Airlines.

We appreciate the help the FAA gives us by providing Essential Air Service, but based on prior experience we have some

concerns about Great Lakes Airlines. In the past Great Lakes provided very poor service to this community. Flights were

often unexpectedly canceled or late. It's very hard to increase enplanements when passengers cannot be assured that their

flight will take off or that they will get home on a return flight.

This is a growing community in need of dependable air service. We are more than willing to welcome Great Lakes back,

but only after some serious discussions about our needs, followed by assurances on their part of a willingness to provide a

better service.

With that in mind, we respectfully request that Great Lakes Airlines be awarded the EAS contract for the Vernal Regional

Airport but request a meeting with the FAA and Great Lakes. Thank you for allowing us input into this decision. We

look forward to improved service and a year of growth.

UINT AH COUNTY COMMISSION

~-d/tLMichael J. McK ,Chamnan

~~"..£

AlA' c.d/es;a

William C. Stringer

.~$. ".< ..

c...~ .•'.,,'

...,

...,

co

1..,;1 .. ; .

COlfNTY 8lf/WING • 151tArT 100 NORTII • VERNAL. IfTAi/84078 • 435-781-5380
No. 12-6397.

#### Taylor et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                             
|View History: Annual                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                       
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|Nebraska Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|Nebraska Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1960's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 2,164  | 1,945  | 1,877 
|1970's                                                                                                                            | 1,650  | 1,275  | 814    | 1,809  | 1,194  | 1,036  | 708    | 695    | 1,160  | 1,867 
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 3,779  | 132    | 107    | 94     | 105    | 87     | 59     | 74     | 47     | 34    
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 26     | 31     | 40     | 56     | 89     | 60     | 46     | 45     | 37     |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
171P16

#### In the Matter of the Appeal Of: Michelin North America, Inc. From the Decision of the Mecklenburg County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Discovery of Certain Business Personal Property and the Proposed Discovery Values for Tax Years 2006-2011

1. Mecklenburg County’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-415)

2. Michelin North America, Inc.’s Conditional PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

3. Wake County’s Conditional Motion for Leave to File *Amicus*Brief

1. Denied

2. Dismissed as moot

3. Dismissed as moot
449P11-15

#### State v. Charles Everette Hinton

Defs *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Mandamus*

Dismissed

Ervin, J., recused
## THE PATH TO COMMERCIALIZATION OF CELLULOSIC ETHANOL



# - A BRIGHTER FUTURE

Peder Holk Nielsen
Executive Vice President, Novozymes A/S

Conference call February 22, 2012• Global energy demand has increased by 40%

• Oil demand has increased by 18% driven by transport

• Global vehicle fleet has doubled and the vast majority still use liquid fuels

• Oil production is concentrated in fewer and fewer countries • Meet >50% of gasoline demand

• Reduce dependency on imported oil

• Help keep oil prices under control

• Stimulate rural economies and create domestic jobs 

## THE FUTURE IS LIQUID FUELS

– WE CAN MAKE IT BRIGHTER WITH BIOFUELS

Sources : International Energy Agency, Bloomberg New Energy Finance



### World facts in 2035 The great promise of biofuels 2

## TO SUPPLY THE FUTURE WITH BIOFUELS A CELLULOSIC ETHANOL INDUSTRY IS EMERGING NOW

Sources: International Energy Agency, Bloomberg New Energy Finance World Map: Public info on large scale plants under planned construction; biochemical conversion (capacity in million US gallons per year ) 3

## TOGETHER WITH OUR PARTNERS WE HAVE NAVIGATED THE SHORTEST PATH TO COMMERCIALIZATION

State

- of

- art enzyme technology continuing to unlock new opportunities to reduce total cost 

### Strategic partnerships exploring process interdependencies to reduce total cost 

### The right destination: commercialization of cellulosic ethanol at lowest total cost 4

## TODAY WE UNLOCK NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE INDUSTRY


# Cellic ® 

# CTec3
We can secure your plant’s lowest total cost 5

## ENZYME EFFICIENCY IS IMPROVED ANOTHER 1.5 TIMES REDUCING TOTAL COST BY 5

- 10% VERSUS CELLIC CTEC2 6

## PRODUCERS WILL INVEST THE EXTRA HORSE POWER TO SAVE ON OTHER COST ITEMS THAN ENZYME COST 7

## USING CELLIC ® 

## CTEC3 YOU NEED 5 TIMES LESS ENZYME THAN STANDARD BIOMASS DEGRADING ENZYMES IN THE MARKET



## Cellic CTec Cellic CTec2 Cellic CTec3 Enzyme efficiency translated into number of truck load deliveries of enzyme to a 35 MGY cellulosic ethanol plant per week:



# 9X 

# 6X 4X

20X Standard biomass degrading enzymes 8

## WE ARE READY TO SUPPLY THE INDUSTRY NOW AND IN THE FUTURE

Novozymes production sites

Cellulosic ethanol plants (current and potential future) 9

## BUT POLITICAL SUPPORT IS STILL NEEDED TO REMOVE ROADBLOCKS TO COMMERCIALIZATION

To attract investments and commercialize cellulosic ethanol, policymakers must support the industry with:

Bankable future demand for advanced biofuels Support for scale

- up of sustainable biomass supply Support for demo and first commercial

- scale plants 10

## UNLEASHING CELLULOSIC ETHANOL IS THE FIRST STEP IN REPLACING THE WHOLE BARREL FOR A BRIGHTER FUTURE

Improve energy security 10% of the gas used in the U.S. today is ethanol

– advanced biofuels can replace another 25%

Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance Create domestic jobs The industry can generate more jobs

– equivalent to 1.4 million man

- years Replace the whole barrel Today, we can replace 40% of a barrel of oil

– i t’s possible to replace the rest! 11

### Learn more: www.bioenergy.novozymes.com/sweet

- spot 

# THANK YOU
074P17

#### Nathaniel Bryant and Joseph L. Gillespie v. Charles Wilbur Bryant and Carl Bryant

1. Pit’s (Nathaniel Bryant) *Pro Se*Motion for Temporary Stay

2. Pit's (Nathaniel Bryant) *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

3. Pit’s (Nathaniel Bryant) *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of Superior Court, Chatham County

1. Denied 03/13/2017

2. Denied 03/14/2017

3. Dismissed
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6406

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILFREDO GONZALEZ LORA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:98-cr-00358-LMB-4; 1:09-cv-01008-LMB)

Submitted: June 24, 2010 Decided: July 1, 2010

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More 

Hollenhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order construing his motion for an evidentiary hearing 

as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion and 

dismissing for lack of jurisdiction. Lora also seeks to appeal 

the district court’s order denying his motion filed pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The orders are not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(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. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Lora has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We deny Lora’s motion to file a formal brief, grant 
3

the motion to seal his informal appellate brief, and deny the 

motion to seal his original § 2255 motion and the district 

court’s order denying it. 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
|                                                                                              
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                          
|View History:                                                                                 
|                                                                                              
|Lake Charles, LA Natural Gas Liquefied Natural Gas Imports from Malaysia  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                              
|                                                                                              
|Lake Charles, LA Natural Gas Liquefied Natural Gas Imports from Malaysia  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 2,576 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | NA     | NA     | 2,423  | 2,704  | 19,999 | 6,095  | 0      |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### Timothy LOPER, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0992

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

MAY 24, 2017

L.T. NO.: 12-14916

Dismissed.
|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                   
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                     
|View History: Annual                                               
|View History: Annual                                               
|View History:                                                      
|                                                                   
|Texas Natural Gas Percentage Total Industrial Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                   
|                                                                   
|Texas Natural Gas Percentage Total Industrial Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                   

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | 23.58  | 22.40  | 22.42  | 24.10  | 24.08  | 24.02  | 23.08 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 25.92  | 27.64  | 26.35  | 26.10  | 25.05  | 20.33  | 19.79  | 19.49  | 19.89  | 19.43 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 20.78  | 20.94  | 21.13  | 20.79  | 20.74  | 21.35  | 21.35  | 21.13  | 21.84  | 21.38 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 22.72  | 23.36  | 22.99  |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
exh10-26.htm


 










Exhibit 10.26


 


Loan Agreement


(Translation)


 


Party A:Qufu Natural Green Engineering Co., Ltd.


Party B:Shandong Anda Bio-Tech Co., Ltd.


 


WHEREAS, Party B applied for a loan from Party A and both parties negotiated the terms in good faith;


 


NOW, therefore, both parties have agreed to enter this loan agreement under the terms and conditions as follows:


 



	
1.  

	
Party A will loan RMB 20,000,000 (twenty million) to Party B as working capital.








	
2.  

	
Term: from December 19, 2011 to December 18, 2012. The principal is due in full amount on expiration date.








	
3.  

	
On expiration date, Party B shall fully pay back the loan in one payment. If further cash or loan is needed, both parties shall sign a new loan agreement, and Party A decides at its own discretion a potential increase or decrease of the credit line available to Party B.








	
4.  

	
This loan provided through this agreement shall only be used as working capital. Otherwise, Party A has the right to collect the loan before expiration and charge Party B with 2% of the loan amount for penalty.








	
5.  

	
If Party B fails to pay the dues of the loan on expiration date, Party B is willing to compensate Party A with the assets owned by Party B and be responsible for all the expenses related to the exercise of creditor’s rights by Party A.







 


 


 


 


 


Party A: Qufu Natural Green Engineering Co., Ltd.


 


Signature:  /s/ Chengxiang Yan


(Corporate seal)


 


 Party B: Shandong Anda Bio-Tech Co., Ltd.


 


Signature: /s/ Ansheng Zhang


 


December 16, 2011
|                                                                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                
|View History:                                                                 
|                                                                              
|Kansas Natural Gas Count of Underground Storage Capacity  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                              
|                                                                              
|Kansas Natural Gas Count of Underground Storage Capacity  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 21    
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 21     | 21     | 20     | 19     | 19     | 18     | 18     | 20     | 18     | 18    
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 18     | 19     | 19     | 18     | 18     | 19     | 19     | 19     | 19     | 19    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 19     | 19     | 19     | 18     | 17     | 17     | 17     | 16     | 16     | 16    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 16     | 16     | 16     |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
Exhibit 99.17.2

 

Mechanical Technology Incorporated

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mechanical Technology Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Cynthia A. Scheuer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, (18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b)), that, to the best of my knowledge: