alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
RECEIVED - 6fJJt

AIR "LANNING SEC,

09 JAN 20 ttl 5= 25

State ofNew Mexico

Office ofthe Governor

Bill Richardson

Governor

January 13, 2009

Mayor Richard Greene

Regional Administrator (6-A)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200

Dallas, IX 75202-2733

==0)=

O~o::a

.

r:5'~?" , .,. ..

'. i i p f -<"~I .. .n

+: • .~

- ";:: : : • to .' -. f '

~!~~~ ?" P :"'J D /it1.

::: •. g2! '/'

" :. ... .: :. . .. .. = : : : :- .. . .. .. ... : : : : ::. • • .. *. ""'.

: :: : ::

: . : .. ::' . : : :

Dear Mayor Greene:

By this letter, New Mexico is resubmitting its 40 CFR 51.309 state implementation plan (SIP),

which we originally submitted on December 31, 2003. Specifically, we are resubmitting sections

A and Band D through L, includingappendices associated with these sections, which we believe

satisfY the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(I) through (3) and (5) through (12). We do not

believe those portions ofthe SIP previously submitted require revision.

Other portions ofthe SIP are currently undergoing revision due to revisions to the Regional Haze

Rule at 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4), and we willsubmit these portions ofthe SIP under separate cover

in 2009. New Mexico will also submit a SIP revision pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(g) for Class I

areas not within the Colorado Plateau in 2009.

If you have any questions regarding the New Mexico Eduction DepqrtInent's efforts with respect

to the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, please feel free to contact Mary Uhl, Chief, Air

Quality Bureau, Environment Department at (505) 476-4301 or bye-mail at

mary.uhl@state.nm.us.

Sincerely,

Bill Richardson

Gnvemor ofNew Mexico

BR/mr

cc: Ron Curry,Secretary, NMED

Jim Norton, Director, NMED Environmental Protection Division

Mary Ubi, Chief, NMED Air Quality Bureau

State Capitol • Room 400 • Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 • 505-476-2200 • www.governor.state.nm.us
(March 16, 2017)

#### In the Matter of Maria L. Gonzalez, Petitioner, v New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.

[48 NYS3d 582]

Determination of respondent, dated May 29, 2013, which denied petitioner succession rights as a remaining family member to the tenancy of her late grandmother, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Alice Schlesinger, J.], entered September 5, 2014), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports the determination that petitioner is not entitled to succession rights as a remaining family member *(see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 180-182 [1978]). In February 2009, petitioner’s grandmother requested permission for petitioner to permanently reside in the apartment. Petitioner’s grandmother passed away one month later. Even if the request had been immediately granted, petitioner would still not have met the requirement that she continuously reside in the apartment, with respondent’s written consent, for at least one year prior to the tenant of record’s death, to entitle her to succession rights *(see Matter of Ortiz v Rhea,*127 AD3d 665 [1st Dept 2015]; *Matter of Saad v New York City Hous. Auth.,*105 AD3d 672 [1st Dept 2013]). The mitigating circumstances cited by petitioner do not provide a basis for annulling respondent’s determination (see *Matter of Featherstone v Franco,*95 NY2d *506550, 554-555 [2000]; *Matter of Firpi v New York City Hous. Auth.,*107 AD3d 523, 524 [1st Dept 2013]). Nor may estoppel be invoked against a governmental agency, such as respondent *(id.*at 524).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments, including that she is entitled to a new hearing, and find them unavailing.

Concur — Renwick, J.P., Richter, Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.
#### Knoll v. Uku 55

08/02/2016

72 WAL (2016)

55

. Justice WECHT did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 146 A.3d 1033
|                                                                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                    
|View History:                                                                                     
|                                                                                                  
|Price of Brownsville, TX Natural Gas Pipeline Exports to Mexico  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                  
|Price of Brownsville, TX Natural Gas Pipeline Exports to Mexico  (Dollars per Thousand 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | --     | 2.49  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2.16   | 6.16   | 6.28   | 2.54   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### In the Matter of Beverly F., Appellant. Creedmoor Psychiatric Center, Respondent.

[55 NYS3d 331]

In a proceeding for permission to administer a course of electroconvulsive therapy to a patient over the patient’s objection, the patient appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), dated December 6, 2016, which, after a hearing, granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The State may administer a course of medical treatment against a patient’s will if it establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, that the patient lacks “the capacity to make a reasoned decision with respect to proposed treatment,” and that “the proposed treatment is narrowly tailored to give substantive effect to the patient’s liberty interest, taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, including the patient’s best interests, the benefits to be gained from the treatment, the adverse side effects associated with the treatment and any less intrusive alternative treatments” *(Rivers v Katz,*67 NY2d 485, 497-498 [1986]; *see Matter of Adam K.,*110 AD3d 168, 172 [2013]). Whether a mentally ill patient has the capacity to make a reasoned decision with respect to treatment is a question of fact for the hearing court, the credibility findings of which are entitled to due deference *(see Matter of Harvey S.,*38 AD3d 906, 907 [2007]; *Matter of William S.,*31 AD3d 567, 568 [2006]; *Matter of Joseph O.,*245 AD2d 856, 857 [1997]). Here, the appellant did not dispute that she lacked the capacity to make a reasoned decision regarding the proposed treatment. Further, considering all of the relevant circumstances, including the appellant’s best interests, the potential benefits and hazards of the proposed treatment, and the lack of less intrusive alternatives, the petitioner established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the proposed treatment is narrowly tailored to protect the appellant’s liberty interest *(see Rivers v Katz,*67 NY2d at 497-498; *Matter of William S.,*31 AD3d at 568-569).

Rivera, J.R, Austin, Miller and Barros, JJ., concur.
#### Com. v. Titus

08/10/2016

203 MAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 141 A.3d 596
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1922

To suspend temporarily the duty on ACM.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 10 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 22), 1994

Mr. RIEGLE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on ACM.

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

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.31.12 3-(acetoxy)-3-

Cyanopropyl]methylphophinicaid, 2-

methylproply ester (provided for in subheading

2931.00.50) ........................ Free No change No change On or before

12/31/98 ’’.

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

9 this section applies with respect to goods entered, or with-
2

•S 1922 IS

1 drawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the

2 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Calvin Walker, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 422]

Appeal from a judgment of Erie County Court (D’Amico, J.), entered May 24, 2000, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, attempted assault in the first degree.

*1359It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred in discharging a sworn juror *(see People v Zeigler,*305 AD2d 1100 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 626 [2003]). We also reject the further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based upon defense counsel’s prior representation of the victim and another prosecution witness on unrelated criminal charges. The court conducted a *Gomberg*inquiry *(see People v Gomberg,*38 NY2d 307 [1975]), advised defendant of the potential conflict, and defendant agreed to defense counsel’s continuing representation *(see People v Smith,*306 AD2d 858, 860, *lv denied*100 NY2d 587 [2003]; *People v Griffin,*249 AD2d 244, 245 [1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 898 [1998]).

The court properly denied that part of defendant’s motion seeking to suppress the identification of defendant from a photo array. “[Although the hairstyles of the men depicted in the array are not identical, ‘ “[t]he viewer’s attention is not drawn to defendant’s photo in such a way as to indicate that the police were urging a particular selection” ’ ” *(People v Martinez,*298 AD2d 897, 897-898 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 769 [2002], *cert denied*538 US 963 [2003], *reh denied*539 US 911 [2003]). The court also properly denied that part of defendant’s motion seeking to suppress the identification of defendant from a lineup. “The issue involved in ascertaining the validity of a lineup identification concerns ‘undue suggestivenesst,]’ which is determined by considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding the lineup” *(People v Rodriguez,*124 AD2d 611, 612 [1986]). An argument between defense counsel and the prosecutor in the presence of lineup witnesses following the lineup cannot be said to have affected the validity of the lineup identification. Finally, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Hayes, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Aquila, Inc.**

**Chief Accounting Officer**

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

 
|   | I, Beth A. Armstrong, certify that: |
|--------|-------------------------------------|

 
|   | 1. | Aquila, Inc.’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2006 accompanying this Certification, in the form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
|   | 2. | The information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Aquila, Inc. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Dated: August 2, 2006

 
|   | /s/ Beth A. Armstrong |
|--------|-----------------------|
|   | Beth A. Armstrong     |  
Chief Accounting Officer 

Aquila, Inc.

 

 

 

 

  |
|                                                                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                    
|View History:                                                                                     
|                                                                                                  
|No chart available.                                                                               
|No chart available.                                                                               
|                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                  
|Price of Freeport, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Lithuania (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                  

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2020                                                                                                                              |     |     |     | W   |     |     |     |     | W   |     |     |    
|2021                                                                                                                              |     | W   |     |     |     | W   | W   |     |     |     |     |    
|2022                                                                                                                              |     |     | W   | W   | W   |     |     |     |     |     |     |    
|2023                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     | W   |     |     |    
|- = 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
,IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ENRIQUE MAYMI,

Defendant BelowAppellant,

v. STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § No. 40, 2017 § § § § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID 87001255DI § § Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: May 1, 2017

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; VAUGHN , and SEITZ , Justices.

ORDER

This 1 st day of May 2017, upon consideration of the appell ant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court

that: (1) The appellant, Enrique Maymi, filed this appea l from the Superior Court’s denial of his second motion for postconvict ion relief. The State has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground t hat it is manifest on the face of Maymi’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm. (2) In December 1987, a Superior Court jury convic ted Maymi and his codefendant, Carmelo Claudio, of Murder in the Firs t Degree. The Superior Court sentenced Maymi to life imprisonment. This Court u pheld his conviction and2

sentence on direct appeal. 1 In 2007, Maymi filed his first motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. The Superior Court appointed counsel to represent Maymi, and appointed counsel filed an amended motion for postconviction relief in March 2008. Th e Superior Court denied his

motion. 2 This Court affirmed on appeal. 3 (3) Maymi filed his second Rule 61 motion in May 2 016. The Superior Court referred Maymi’s motion to a commissioner, wh o issued a report on October 3, 2016, recommending that Maymi’s motion be denied as both untimely and repetitive. On December 21, 2016, after conducting a de novo review, a judge of the Superior Court adopted the commissioner’s repor t and recommendation and denied Maymi’s motion. This appeal followed. (4) After careful consideration of the opening bri ef and the State’s motion to affirm, it is clear that the judgment below shou ld be affirmed on the basis of, and for the reasons assigned by, the Superior Court in its well-reasoned decision dated December 21, 2016. The Superior Court did no t err in concluding that Maymi’s second motion for postconviction relief was untimely and repetitive and that Maymi had failed to overcome these procedural hurdles. Maymi’s contention

1 Claudio v. State , 585 A.2d 1278 (Del. 1991). 2 State v. Claudio , 2008 WL 853799 (Del. Super. Apr. 1, 2008). 3 Claudio v. State , 958 A.2d 846 (Del. 2008).3

that he was entitled to the appointment of counsel to pursue his second motion under Rule 61 is simply incorrect. 4 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice

4 Gibbs v. State , 2015 WL 3843378 (Del. June 18, 2015).
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**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 Quarterly Report of Mines Management, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Glenn M. Dobbs        |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Glenn M. Dobbs            |   |
| Chief   Executive Officer |   |
| October 1,   2013    |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Mines Management, Inc. and will be retained by Mines Management, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
### combustionsurvey

- FW: Request for Additional Information for Industrial Boiler MACT

Reconsideration

-----Forwarded by Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US on 07/ 16/2011 03:30PM -----
To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mary Johnson/ RTP/USEPA/US@EPA From: "Monroe, Larry S." <LSMONROE@southernco.com> Date: 07/16/2011 11:04AM Cc: Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Mitchell, Aaron David" <AADMITCH@southernco.com> Subject: FW: Request for Additional Information for Industrial Boiler MACT Reconsideration (See attached file: Georgia Power Additional Inform ation for IB MACT Reconsideration.pdf)

Bob and Mary:

Here are Georgia Power’s response to the IB MACT re quest for information. Southern Company did not file comments as a whole, so this should be all that you see from us.

Larry

From: Mitchell, Aaron David Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 3:54 PM To: 'shrager.brian@epa.gov'; 'combustionsurvey@erg.com ' Subject: Request for Additional Information for Industrial Boiler MACT Reconsideration

Mr. Shrager,

Please find attached Georgia Power’s response to th e Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) request for additional information for Industrial B oiler MACT Reconsideration Process; 76 FED. 

### From: Brian Shrager <Shrager.Brian@epamail.epa.gov> To: <combustionsurvey@erg.com> Date: 7/16/2011 3:30 PM Subject: FW: Request for Additional Information for Industrial Boiler MACT R econsideration Attachments: Georgia Power Additional Information for IB MACT Reconsideration.pdf Page 1 of 2

8/2/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settings\GGibson\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpw ise\4E21AE9BDO

...REG. 28662 (MAY 18, 2011); Docket ID. No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2002

– 0058 and EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2003

–

0119.

Georgia Power appreciates the opportunity to submit the enclosed information to inform the reconsideration of the EPA’s National Emissions Sta ndards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boile rs and Process Heaters.

Sincerely,

Aaron



### Aaron Mitchell Air Programs Supervisor

Georgia Power Company Phone: (404) 506-1364



### = Page 2 of 2

8/2/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settings\GGibson\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpw ise\4E21AE9BDO

...
2017-1447.

#### Snowden v. McKay.

In Mandamus. On respondent’s motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
Bellwood Bash brings employees together for food and fun
 
  By Natalie Skelton, DLA Aviation Public Affairs
  Service members, civilians and their families gathered together for fun and camaraderie during the annual Bellwood Bash hosted by Defense Logistics Agency Installation Management Richmond’s Morale, Welfare and Recreation Office June 26 at the Community Recreation Center on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia. The day began with a 5K “fun” run/walk hosted by the MWR Fitness Center. Families cooled down with a swim in the pool, while others tried their luck at horseshoes and cornhole. In addition to a kid zone that boasted several inflatables, artists were on hand to provide temporary tattoos, face painting and caricatures to adults and children alike. Along with MWR staff, much of the event’s success was accredited to over 30 volunteers, who ensured the Bellwood Bash’s third year ran smoothly. Due to the size and manpower required, the DLA Aviation’s Operations Center Restaurant was not open during the event.
No. 12-8123.

#### Brooks *v.*Medina, Warden, et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.