alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/aassem01/Desktop/For%20Rendering/OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0349%20M.%20King%20(2).txt

-----Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/15/2010 10:27PM -----

To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: "Harrison, James R." <James.Harrison@Exterran.com> 

Date: 10/20/2009 05:39PM 

cc: "Rebecca Rentz (rebecca.rentz@bgllp.com)" <rebecca.rentz@bgllp.com>, "Bowes, Bill" 

<Bill.Bowes@Exterran.com>, "Jantzen, Kyle" <Kyle.Jantzen@Exterran.com>, 

"japanek@ameritech.net" <japanek@ameritech.net>, "Jantzen, Kyle" 

<Kyle.Jantzen@Exterran.com>, "Wasson, Mike" <Mike.Wasson@Exterran.com>, Jim 

McCarthy <jamesmccarthy@comcast.net>, "'Thomas McGrath'" 

<tmcgrath.mea@gmail.com>, "David O'Leary (David.O'Leary@warren-equipment.com)" 

<David.O'Leary@warren-equipment.com>, "JDutton@jwoperating.com" 

<JDutton@jwoperating.com>, "tom.p.monahan@exxonmobil.com" 

<tom.p.monahan@exxonmobil.com>, "jeffrey.adams@bp.com" <jeffrey.adams@bp.com> 

Subject: 2SLB-Cameron oxidation catalyst pricing

Melanie,

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the 2SLB engines today. In response to your 

request during that call, I’ve attached the premium catalyst equipment pricing matrix 

supplied by Cameron in July of this year, which details the configurations available from 

Cameron. 

Note that our cost analysis used the assumption that the premium muffler and housing 

would be required to retrofit our 2SLB fleet.

Note, too, that catalysts suppliers will typically state certain operational restrictions and/or 

parameters that must be satisfied in order to realize the published emission reductions. 

Exterran has requested an explanation of any such restrictions and/or parameters from 

Cameron and is awaiting their response.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards,

James Harrison

N.American Fleet Services

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/aassem01/Desktop...ndering/OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0349%20M.%20King%20(2).txt2/22/2010 10:09:31 AM
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2011-0259

Directorate Identifier: 2010NM196AD

AFM 3-140-65, I2 --- UNDATED

AFM 3-140-65A, I2 --- UNDATED

AFM 3-140-65B, I2 --- UNDATED

AFM 3-140-70A, I1 --- UNDATED

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
(November 14, 2017)

#### HSBC Bank USA, Respondent, v Paula Rice, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[63 NYS3d 382]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered September 30, 2015, which, among other things, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its foreclosure complaint and directed a referee to compute the amount due, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied, and, upon a search of the record, summary judgment granted to defendant Paula Rice dismissing the complaint as against her, without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

RPAPL 1304 notice “shall be sent by [the] lender, assignee (including purchasing investor) or mortgage loan servicer to the borrower, by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail to the last known address of the borrower, and to the residence that is the subject of the mortgage” (RPAPL 1304 [2]). Proper service of a RPAPL 1304 notice containing the statutorily-mandated content is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and plaintiff has the burden of establishing its strict compliance with this condition *(see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Weisblum,*85 AD3d 95, 103 [2d Dept 2011]).

Plaintiff failed to establish that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304. Plaintiff submitted an affidavit of its loan servicer, supported by copies of the 90-day notice it alleges was *444served and a copy of the unsigned, undated return receipt. These documents were insufficient to establish plaintiff’s prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. In the affidavit, the loan servicer’s vice president of loan documentation fails to demonstrate a familiarity with the servicer’s mailing practices and procedures. Therefore, plaintiff did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure (see *Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Lewczuk,*153 AD3d 890 [2d Dept 2017]; *Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Trupia,*150 AD3d 1049 [2d Dept 2017]). Moreover, portions of the receipt in the record are blank, and an undated and unsigned return receipt is not sufficient to establish proof of the actual mailing (see *Wells Fargo, N.A. v Trupia,*150 AD3d at 1051; see *also Investors Sav. Bank v Salas,*152 AD3d 752 [2d Dept 2017]).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach defendant’s remaining contentions.

Concur—Richter, J.P., Webber, Kern and Moulton, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Manuel Asensio, Petitioner, v Lawrence J. Marks, Respondent.

[66 NYS3d 130]

The above-named petitioner having presented an application to this Court praying for an order, pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, now, upon reading and filing the papers in said proceeding, and due deliberation having been had thereon, it is unanimously ordered that the application be and the same hereby is denied and the petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn and Singh, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2.  CERTIFICATION  I, S. E. Parks, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this report of Questar Gas Company on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2008;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue 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. [intentionally omitted];  4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.    November 6, 2008 /s/S. E. Parks S. E. Parks Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
# Joint Reserve Force’s Army element welcomes new commander

/ Published Oct. 6, 2021
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
Army Capt. Gerald M. Carey Jr. took the helm of Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment for the Defense Logistics Agency’s Joint Reserve Force from Army Capt. Larraine G. Dunwoody in a virtual ceremony broadcast from Fort Belvoir, Va., Sept 18. 

HHD maintains readiness across the JRF’s Army Reserve Element, which has soldiers in 14 locations. ARE Commander Army Col. Scott W. Richards said serving as HHD commander is more challenging than serving as a company commander, especially during a pandemic and in a virtual environment.

“[Dunwoody] logged many hours conducting training requirements, personnel administrative issues and maintaining accountability of members of the JRF,” Richards said, adding that the position requires tact and persistence. “And I can tell Capt. Carey has those same qualities.”

Dunwoody added, “Being there for you was my number one priority.” 

Carey said he looks forward to making a great organization even better. 

The colors of the guidon used in the ceremony symbolize the authority of command, and the passing of the colors from Dunwoody to Carey represents the transfer of authority from the outgoing commander to the new commander.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Aaron Reel, Appellant.

[56 NYS3d 140]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lopez, J.), rendered August 6, 2015, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s request to charge the jury with the defense of temporary and lawful possession. “ ‘[T]o trigger the right [to a charge of temporary and lawful possession] there must be proof in the record showing a legal excuse for having the weapon in [the defendant’s] possession as well as facts tending to establish that, once possession has been obtained, the weapon had not been used in a dangerous manner’ ” *(People v Banks,*76 NY2d 799, 801 [1990], quoting *People v Williams,*50 NY2d 1043, 1045 [1980]). However, a defendant is not entitled to the charge where the evidence presented is “utterly at odds with any claim of innocent possession” *(People v Banks, 76*NY2d at 801 [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see People*
      *1029
      *v Snyder, 73*NY2d 900, 902 [1989]; *People v Williams,*50 NY2d at 1045; *People v Smith,*54 AD3d 421, 421 [2008]). Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant *(see People v Zona,*14 NY3d 488, 493 [2010]; *People v Shamsiddeen,*98 AD3d 694, 695 [2012]), although the gun was initially “thrust” upon the defendant’s person, the defendant’s own testimony established that he nonetheless accepted and retained possession of the gun and proceeded to conceal it on his person. He did all of this in anticipation of receiving drugs and discharging a debt owed to his drug dealer. This evidence was “utterly at odds with any claim of innocent possession” *(People v Banks,*76 NY2d at 801 [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see People v Snyder,*73 NY2d at 902; *People v Williams,*50 NY2d at 1045; *People v Smith,*54 AD3d at 421).

The defendant’s contention that the prosecutor’s comments during summation constituted reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review because he failed to object at trial to the challenged remarks *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Flanagan,*132 AD3d 693, 694 [2015], *affd*28 NY3d 644 [2017]). In any event, the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence *(see People v Ashwal,*39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]), responsive to arguments and theories presented in the defense summation *(see People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396 [1981]; *People v Moore,*29 AD3d 825, 825-826 [2006]), or constituted harmless error *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; *People v Hill,*286 AD2d 777, 778 [2001]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Chambers, J.P., Sgroi, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.
2017-0105.

#### Groves v. Ihsanullah.

Cuyahoga App. No. 103404, 2016-Ohio-7703. Discretionary appeal of Marymount Hospital and discretionary appeal of Sahibzadah A. Ihsanullah not accepted.

O’Donnell, J., dissents and would accept the discretionary appeal of Marymount Hospital.
Exhibit 10.1


LOJACK CORPORATION


 


Summary of Board Compensation


 


The following is a summary of the currently effective compensation of the board of directors of LoJack Corporation (the “Company”) for services as directors, which is subject to modification at any time by the Board of Directors.



	
             
 	
            •
 	
            An annual cash retainer of $20,000 per director
 





	
             
 	
            •
 	
            Audit Committee Chair compensation of $10,000 per year
 





	
             
 	
            •
 	
            Compensation Committee Chair compensation of $7,500 per year
 





	
             
 	
            •
 	
            Nominating / Governance Chair compensation of $5,000 per year
 





	
             
 	
            •
 	
            Lead Director compensation of $5,000 per year
 





	
             
 	
            •
 	
            Board Meeting fee of $1,500 per meeting  ($750 per telephone meeting or telephone participation in a meeting.  No fee for brief telephone meetings.)
 





	
             
 	
            •
 	
            Committee Meeting fee of $1,000 per meeting ($750 per telephone meeting or telephone participation in a meeting.  No fee for brief telephone meetings.)
 





	
             
 	
            •
 	
            An annual grant (on the third business day after the annual meeting) of $80,000 (rounded to the nearest whole number of shares) in value of restricted stock subject to forfeiture and restrictions on transfer, such restrictions to lapse after two years.  
 




Annual restricted share grants and compensation shall be prorated for new directors taking office between annual shareholder meeting dates.
# HQC employees celebrate Navy’s 244th birthday

/ Published Oct. 11, 2019
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia, 
The U.S. Navy has come a long way since its humble beginning as a single ship of sailors cruising for three months to a worldwide fleet that protects America’s freedoms and safeguards allies every day, a Defense Threat Reduction Agency official told McNamara Headquarters Complex employees in a Navy birthday ceremony Oct. 10. 

“Today, over 30% of our ships are at sea sailing waterways throughout the world. Whenever I’m at a gathering of sailors like this, I think if I walked around and interviewed these folks what a diverse set of experiences we’d have,” said Navy Rear Adm. John Spencer, director of DTRA’s Nuclear Enterprise Directorate. 

The theme of the Navy’s 244th birthday is “No Higher Honor,” taken from quote by Navy Lt. Cmdr. Robert Copeland, commanding officer of USS Samuel B. Roberts during a three-day battle in the Leyte Gulf in World War II. From Oct. 23 to Oct. 25, the Navy struggled to retake the Philippines from Japan and secure the Pacific theater. On the final morning, Roberts and a small group of destroyer escorts collectively code-named “Taffy 3” became outnumbered by Japanese battleships. 

“The entire Taffy 3 group was decimated; all the ships were lost,” Spencer said. “But in this brave battle they held off the [Japanese] battleship guns from affecting the amphibious landing of our Marines.” 

Ground troops therefore achieved victory and retook the Philippines. Copeland later said there was “no higher honor” than serving with his crew in that battle on that particular day. 

Spencer challenged sailors present to remain ready to fight increasingly capable adversaries while assigned to support agencies at the HQC. 

“Make sure that you have the courage and commitment that our predecessors in World War II were able to demonstrate,” he said.

The event included a performance by the U.S. Navy Drill Team and a cake cutting with the oldest and youngest sailors present, Spencer and Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Erica Doenes from DTRA, respectively.
**EXHIBIT
31.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 
 I Charles
Mazzacato, Chief Executive Officer of Axion Power International, Inc. certify
that:
 
 1.
    I
      have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB of Axion Power International,
      Inc. 
 2.
    Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue 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, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
      registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
      report; 
 4.
    The
      registrant's other certifying officers and I, are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we
      have: 
 a)
    designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
      information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
      subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
      particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared; 
 b)
    evaluated
      the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures
      as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report (the
      "Evaluation Date"); and 
 c)
    presented
      in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
      controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
      Date; 
 5.
    The
      registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
      most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
      committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
      equivalent function): 
 a)
    all
      significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
      which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
      summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
      registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls;
      and 
 b)
    any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
      controls; and 
 6.
    The
      registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this report
      whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in
      other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
      to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
      actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
      weaknesses. 
 
  /s/ Charles
Mazzacato
  Charles
Mazzacato , Chief
Executive Officer
 Dated:
March 30, 2005
# DLA Distribution Korea Celebrates Chuseok

/ Published Sept. 8, 2019
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
DLA Distribution Korea will be closed Sept.13 in celebration of Chuseok, also known as the Korean Thanksgiving Day. Chuseok is largely centered around the culture and history of South Korea. Because of this, many South Korean families will honor traditions that allow them to reconnect to their family roots. During a three-day period, running from Sept. 12-14, Koreans return to their ancestral hometowns to celebrate with their families. Families gather to give thanks to their ancestors and appreciate the bounty of nature during the harvest season. They carefully set an alter laden with foods that have been prepared with grains and fruits from the year’s harvests.

In addition to Chuseok, Jesa is a traditional Korean ceremony that honors a family’s ancestors. At the conclusion of Jesa, families gather at their ancestors' graves to hold a memorial service. In preparation for Jesa, they cut grass and weeds around their ancestor’s graves and offer food, drink, and crops to honor their loved ones. 

Songpyeon is a traditional holiday rice cake food shaped like a half-moon produced during Chuseok with newly harvested rice and fresh grains to celebrate the harvest of the year. The ingredients inside vary and may include sesame seeds, green beans, red beans, chestnuts or other similar ingredients. 

During Chuseok, families also present gifts to relatives, friends and business acquaintances to show their thanks and appreciation. Kyong Pak, DLA Distribution Korea quality assurance specialist, says she likes the holidays. “People gather all in one place like New Year’s day. I barely meet my relatives twice a year because we all live in different cities. But on this day, adults and children can talk about how they’ve been doing and tell their stories to each other. The day is full of laughing and smiling all day long. Chuseok is very special for me because this day makes everyone happy and comfortable since they’re spending time with family.” Pak also noted that an old Korean proverb says, “Not more or not less, but just like Chuseok.” The proverb means that we should try to enjoy every day the way Chuseok is enjoyed.
No. 10-5176.

#### Robert L. Rehberger, Petitioner v. Henry County, Georgia, et al.

562 U.S. 806, 131 S. Ct. 254,

178 L. Ed. 2d 7,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7759.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.