alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                         
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                     
|View History:                                                                            
|                                                                                         
|Missouri Natural Gas % of Total Industrial Delivered for the Account of Others  (Percent)
|                                                                                         
|                                                                                         
|Missouri Natural Gas % of Total Industrial Delivered for the Account of Others  (Percent)
|                                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 44.9  
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 67.3   | 74.7   | 75.5   | 76.4   | 79.4   | 77.6   | 75.0   | 78.5   | 81.8   | 81.5  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 83.2   | 83.5   | 84.0   | 85.2   | 86.2   | 85.8   | 86.8   | 87.2   | 86.1   | 86.8  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 86.9   | 86.6   | 87.5   | 86.1   | 86.0   | 87.5   | 88.2   | 87.9   | 86.2   | 87.5  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 88.3   | 87.8   | 88.2   |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### COM. v. KIMMEL, G.

1515 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

08/29/2017

CP-14-CR-0001402-2015

(Centre)

Affirmed/Remanded
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

** **

**LONG BEACH SECURITIES CORP.**

** **

**RESTATED OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

 

I, Douglas A. Potolsky, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this report on Form 10–K and all reports on Form 10–D required to befiled in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10–K of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-2 (the ‘‘Exchange Act periodic reports’’);

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain anyuntrue 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 report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to beprovided under Form 10–D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.             Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material respects; and

 

5.             All of the reports on assessment of compliance with Servicing Criteria for asset-backedsecurities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with Servicing Criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a–18 and 15d–18have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10–K. 

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  Deutsche BankNational Trust Company.

 

 

 

Date:  As of March 15,2007

|   |   | /s/ Doug Potolsky                                                                            |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Name:  DougPotolsky                                                                     |
|   |   | Title:   President and Senior Officer in Charge of Securitization of the Depositor |
|                                                                                            
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                              
|View History: Annual                                                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                        
|View History:                                                                               
|                                                                                            
|New Hampshire Natural Gas Number of Industrial Consumers - Transported  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|New Hampshire Natural Gas Number of Industrial Consumers - Transported  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                            

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 63     | 72    
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 94     | 94     | 177    | 261    | 264    | 342    | 372    |        |        |       
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 275    | 337    | 436    | 368    | 138    | 145    | 142    | 142    | 142    | 140   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 145    | 141    | 132    |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
101P17

#### State v. Caleb J. Lucky, III

Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Mandamus*

Denied
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION 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 of PreAxia Health Care Payment Systems Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tom Zapatinas, President (Principal Executive Officer) certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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




Date:  September 8, 2009
By: Tom Zapatinas


Name:  Tom Zapatinas


Title:    President (Principal Executive Officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing
of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.)
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 26210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12566]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-34,219]


Powers Holdings, Incorporated, Curtis Industries Division, 
Milwaukee, WI; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for 
Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Certification 
Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on 
April 8, 1998, applicable to workers of Powers Holdings, Incorporated 
located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The notice will soon be published in 
the Federal Register.
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. New findings on review 
show that there are two divisions of Powers Holdings operating at the 
Milwaukee plant. Workers, subject of the petition investigation, 
producing terminal blocks, along with some production of controls, RFI 
filters, and sockets are affiliated with the Curtis Industries Division 
of the subject firm. Accordingly, the Department is amending the worker 
certification to reflect this matter.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-34,219 is hereby issued as 
follows:

``All workers of Powers Holdings, Incorporated, Curtis Industries 
Division, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who became totally or partially 
separated from employment on or after January 15, 1997 through April 
8, 2000, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under 
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 28th day of April 1998.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 98-12566 Filed 5-11-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0307[1] From: Suchecki, Joe [JSuchecki@ngelaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 9:36 AM To: Tanya Parise Subject: RE: Existing RICE NESHAP - Cost of Aftertreatment

Tanya,

Sorry it has taken a little while to get back to you.

A fter reviewing the background documents on the costs of aftertreatment, we would agree with the comment that the costs that were used are on the low side. In particular, the costs for addition of a DPF are very low - one would not expect the costs of adding a DPF to be less than adding a DOC.

Here are a couple of comments that I received from EMA members.

The costs for installation/construction appear to be low. The background document assumes a construction/field cost of 5%. We believe it is more in the range of 10-15%.

A lso, the installation costs of a DOC or DPF on an existing engine should be higher than the cost of including those technologies on a new engine. You have to retrofit and incorporate the control technology onto an engine that was not designed with that in mind, so costs are likely to be higher than to purchase an engine where the aftertreatment is designed into the engine configuration.

Regarding DPF costs, using the regression equation for retrofitting a 3000 hp engine comes to around $23,700. One member provided information to indicate that a DPF installed on a 3000 hp engine would be around $90,000 - $100,000 (complete cost to the customer).

A gain, one would not expect a DPF to cost less than a OC, so we would agree that the numbers are low and something is way off on those capital cost estimates.

Joe

Joe Suchecki Director, Public Affairs Engine Manufacturers Association Two North LaSalle Street, Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60602

Tel: 312-827-8734

Fax: 312-827-8737 j suchecki@emamail.org www.enginemanufacturers.org

Confidentiality Notice: This communication is confidential and may contain privileged information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and immediately delete it and any attachments without copying or further transmitting the same.

A ll attachments are MS Office XP and are MIME encoded. If you have any software compatibility issues, please contact EMA at (312) 827-8700 immediately.

Page 1EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0307[1]

From: Tanya Parise [mailto:parise.tanya@ecrweb.com] Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 1:30 PM To: Suchecki, Joe; WINKLEMAN_BRADY_L@cat.com Subject: Existing RICE NESHAP - Cost of Aftertreatment Joe and Brady,

I’m hoping one or both of you can help us answer this question. We got some comments on the proposed existing RICE NESHAP indicating that catalysts and associated equipment would be more expensive for larger diesel engines than what EPA estimated for proposal. Would you agree or disagree ? Does EMA or Caterpillar have any information on the costs of applying DOC and DPF to larger stationary diesel engines, say 3,000 HP and above?

Thanks again for your help on this rulemaking, Tanya

Tanya Parise EC/R Incorporated 501 Eastowne Drive, Suite 250 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 484-0417

Page 2
|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|                                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File) 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                           
|View History:                                            
|                                                         
|Idaho Natural Gas Vented and Flared  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                         
|                                                         
|Idaho Natural Gas Vented and Flared  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0      | 7      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 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
No. 12-6329.

#### Richardson *v.*Ray, Warden, et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
REGINA LEWIS
, Plaintiff

,

v.
THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant

. No. 23-77 (Filed: January 27, 2023)

R egina Lewis, Newburgh, NY, pro se

.
O RDER

L ERNER, Judge

.

P laintiff , Regina Lewis, appearing pro se , filed a complaint in this Court on January 18, 2023, against the Department of the Interior. See Compl., Dkt No. 1. In her Complaint, she alleges that Defendant unlawfully refused to acknowledge her status as an indigenous person and failed to provide her the concomitant privileges. Id . at 4. This Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.

I. Legal Standards

The Tucker Act itself does not create a cause of action. “[T]he plaintiff must look beyond the Tucker Act to identify a substantive source of law that creates the right to recovery of money damages against the United States.” Rick’s Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States , 521 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Plaintiffs have the “burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Curry v. United States , 787 Fed. App’x 720, 722 (Fed. Cir. 2019). While courts interpret pro se filings leniently, such plaintiffs must still show jurisdiction. See id

. While pro se plaintiffs are afforded greater latitude , this leniency does not absolve them from the obligation to establis h jurisdiction. See Bernard v. United States , 59 Fed. Cl. 497, 499 (2004).

II. Discussion
Ms. Lewis claims that the Department of the Interior refused to acknowledge her indigenous status and provide her with “ aid and assistance for the past four year s.” Co mpl. at 4. In part, Ms. Lewis’ s claim s rely on the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997. Id. This Act is law in the Republic of the Philippines. As such, this Court has no jurisdiction. Cf. De Archibold 

# In the **United States Court of Federal Claims** Corrected2 v. United States , 57 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (2003) ( “The law of Panama, a foreign country, cannot act as the waiver of sovereign immunity that is required for Tucker A ct jurisdiction in this court.”). The Complaint also cites additional authorities, none of which establish jurisdiction. See Morton v. Mancari , 417 U.S. 535 (1975) ( cited by Plaintiff and narrowly addressing hiring preference in the Bureau of Indian Affa irs for i ndigenous people ); see also 25 U.S.C. A. § Ch. 45
, Protection of Indians & Conservation of Res

. ( cited by Plaintiff and summarizing statutory protections for Indian Tribes). Nothing in the Complaint implicates this Court’s jurisdiction. If subje ct matter jurisdiction cannot be established, the Court must dismiss the case. Adair v. United States , 497 F. 3d 1244, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, this case is DISMISSED

. The Court CERTIFIES
, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith because, as alleged, P laintiff’s claims are outside the jurisdiction of this Court and incurable. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperi s is GRANTED

. The C l erk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly

.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Carolyn N. Lerner CAROLYN N. LERNER Judge
Exhibit 32.1

ASCENT SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

CERTIFICATION
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 of Ascent Solar Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the "Report"), I, Matthew Foster, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify 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 my knowledge:



Date:
March 14, 2008

| |  | /s/MATTHEW FOSTERMatthew Foster, President and
Chief Executive Officer
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks