alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
August 3, 2012

Honorable Lisa P. Jackson , Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code: 6102T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460

Re: New Source Performance Standard for Residential Wood Burning Devices

Dear Administrator Jackson :

State and local air quality management agencies from across the country

urge EPA to expeditiously promulgate an update to the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for Residential Wood Burning Devices. With EPA’s recent proposal

to strengthen the national ambient air quality standard for fine particulate matter, updating this performance standard to reflect best demonstrated emission controls,

and to broaden the standard to address devices that are not included in the current

NSPS i s now more important than ever.

Wood is a domestic renewable energy resource for home heating, and as such can be an important part of a state’s portfolio of renewable energy alternatives. However, with inadequate controls, wood burning can emit high leve ls of fine particulate and air toxics, potentially endangering public health. Over the 20

- plus years since EPA promulgated the NSPS for Residential Wood Burning Devices, improved technologies to limit emissions from these devices have been developed

and de monstrated. Many manufacturers have been building wood heaters with

emission rates far below EPA’s current standards, and have for many years. Consistent with Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, we urge EPA to move forward with

a revision to the NSPS that re flects the best system of emission reduction that has been adequately demonstrated. Moreover, EPA should examine the testing methods used to determine compliance with the standards, and revise the methods as appropriate and necessary to accurately determin e emission performance. Both strong emissions standards and an accurate emissions test method are essential to the continued credibility of EPA ’ s wood heater certification program.

In summary, an update to the NSPS for Residential Wood Burning Devices is long overdue, and with EPA’s latest proposal for a more stringent fine particulate standard, EPA has effectively acknowledged the public health impacts from fine particulate matter at concentrations far lower than the levels contemplated in 1988,

when this NSPS was first promulgated. We will continue to work with EPA on this important effort in the coming months kno wing that the alternative is for state and local agencies to undertake rulemaking on their own, faced with many of the samechallenges that EPA faces but without EPA’s resources or expertise

. Accordingly, it is

EPA’s responsibility to expeditiously promulgate new performance standards for wood heaters that encompass the full range of wood heating devices in use today,

and that reflect best demonst rated technologies.

Sincerely,

Dan Johnson Arthur Marin

Executive Director Executive Director

WESTAR NESCAUM
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

    As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our report included in this Form 10-K/A, into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statements (as amended, as applicable) File Numbers 33-4041,
33-9570, 33-12119, 33-15680, 33-37827, 33-56762, 33-65123, 33-83402, 333-07413,
333-10919, 333-10965, 333-30947, 333-57651, 333-66149, 333-47633, 333-66147,
333-67341, 333-68621, 333-90133, 333-90139, 333-35102 and 333-35274. It should
be noted that we have not audited any financial statements of the Company
subsequent to December 31, 1999 or performed any audit procedures subsequent to
the date of our report.

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

San Diego, California
May 23, 2000
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements of Dynamic Materials Corporation and related
Prospectuses of our reports dated March 12, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of Dynamic Materials Corporation and the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting of Dynamic Materials Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2008.

Form S-8 No. 333-58033Form S-8 No. 333-54166Form S-8 No. 333-115563Form S-8 No. 333-143355Form S-3 No. 333-150231


/s/ Ernst & Young LLPDenver, Colorado
March 12, 2009


---



QuickLinks
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY RELIEF

Appellate case name: St. Luke’s Sugar Land Partnership v. Shatish Patel, M.D., 

Hemalatha Vijayan, M.D., Subodh Sonwalkar, M.D., and 

Wolley Oladut, M.D.

Appellate case number: 01-15-01111-CV

Trial court case number: 2011-24016

Trial court: 152nd Judicial District Court of Harris County

On January 4, 2016, appellant, St. Luke’s Sugar Land Partnership, filed an 

emergency motion for temporary relief asking this Court to stay the trial court’s Order 

Appointing Receiver for St. Luke’s Sugar Land Partnership, L.L.P. dated December 23, 

2015. 

Appellant’s request for temporary relief is GRANTED, and the receivership order 

is STAYED pending a response from the appellees and further orders of this Court. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 29.3. Appellees are requested to file a response to appellant’s motion 

within 10 days of the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 4, 2016
The HONORABLE E. RICHARD WEBBER, United States District Judge for * the Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1442

___________ Charles A. Trobaugh, * * Movant - Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. State of Iowa, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Respondent - Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: January 16, 1998 Filed: February 17, 1998

___________ Before LOKEN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and WEBBER, District Judge. *

___________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Charles A. Trobaugh filed a Motion for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis in the district court, arguing that an expired Iowa state court conviction that had been used to enhance his federal sentence shou ld be vacated because of an involuntary guilty plea, ineffective assistance of counsel, and a due process/equal protectionThe HONORABLE RONALD E. LONGSTAFF, United States District Judge 1 for the Southern District of Iowa. -2- violati onduring state post-conviction proceedings. The district court dismissed th e 1 motion, concluding that t

he writ of coram nobis is not available if the petitioner is still in federal custody, and that the writ may not be used to challenge a state cour t conviction in federal court. Trobaugh appeals. After careful consideration, we agree with the district court that the writ of coram nobis may not be used to collaterally attack a state court conviction in this manner. Moreover, even if the district court ha d ju risdiction to consider a collateral attack on the expired state court conviction i n question, “there is no federal constitutional right to collaterally attack a prior conviction used to enhance a sentence on any constitutional ground other than failure to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant.” Partee v. Hopkins , 30 F.3d 1011, 1012 (8th Cir. 1994), applying Custis v. United States , 114 S. Ct. 1732 (1994). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

**AP7.26 APPENDIX 7.26**

**DELIVERY PRIORITY/SPECIAL PROCESSING CODES**

AP7.26-1

APPENDIX 7.26
No. 10-11222.

#### Ralph Stevens Baze, Jr., Petitioner v. Philip Parker.

565 U.S. 873, 132 S. Ct. 230,

181 L. Ed. 2d 128,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6935.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 632 F.3d 338.
No. 11-5092.

#### Jason Pecci, Petitioner v. Brigham Sloan, Warden, et al.

565 U.S. 889, 132 S. Ct. 267,

181 L. Ed. 2d 157,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5380.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 414 Fed. Appx. 180.
No. 10-10220.

#### Brent Winters, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 831, 132 S. Ct. 130,

181 L. Ed. 2d 51,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5737,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 618 F.3d 619.
No. 10-1423.

#### Richard Noto, Petitioner v. Florida.

565 U.S. 820, 132 S. Ct. 105,

181 L. Ed. 2d 32,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6813.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, denied.

Same case below, 42 So. 3d 814.
Exhibit 4.1




---



##### 



Shareholders may obtain, upon revest and athout chargp, a statement of the rigits,
preferences, priulegss and restrictions ganted to or imposed upon each class of shares authored to
be issued and upon the holders thereof from the office of the cor            poration.The
followigabbreuations, \Aien used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be
construed as thougi they «bre witten out in full accordingto applicable law or
regjlations:TEN C(M   as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT- Custodian TEN ENT -as tenants by
the entireties <Cusl> <Minor>JTTEN -as joint tenants vith
rigit of under Uniform Gifts to Minors Actsurvivorshipand not as tenants in common
(state)Additional abbreuations may also be used thougi not in the abo\e list.
F(R VALUE RECEIVED, hereby sells, assigis and transfers untoPLEASE INSERT SOIAL SECURITY <R
OTHER IDENTIFICATKM NUMBER # ASSIGNEEPlease frint or tyfeifflte name and address includingfostal
apcode of assignee Sharesof the Common Stock represented by the «thin Certificate and do hereby
irre\ocably constitute and appoint Attorneyto transfer the said stock on the books of the
«thin-named Corporation «th full powEr of substitution in the premises.DATED NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE
TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN
EVERY PARTICULAR WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED:
THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANT© INSTITUTE (BANKS, STCEKBRCKERS, SAVINGS
AND L(SN ASSCEIATHWS AND CREDIT UNIOIS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLKDI
PRGERAM), PURSUANT TCS.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.KEEP THIS CERTIFICATE IN A SAFE PLACE. IF IT IS LOST,
STOLEN, MUTILATED OR DESTROYED, THE CORPORATION WILL REQUIRE A BOND OF INDEMNITY AS A CONDITION TO
THE ISSUANCE OF A REPLACEMENT CERTIFICATE.AMERICAN BANK NOTE COMPANYPRODUCTION CORDINATCBt: DEMISE
LITTLE 931^190-1706711 ARMSTRONG LANEPROS <SNWEMBER 5, 2007COLUMBIA, TENNESSEE 3840 ELECTRO
RENT CORPORATION <^1)38M«B JSBJUDBK~ ~ ^SAyES^_2_crsHARj<EY_30&73l]708!r ~ ~   
~l^raton___~  Ron___~"/ ETHER 7 / LIVE JBS / E / ELECTRORENT 28609 BK
New PLEASE INITIAL THE APPROPRIATE SELECTION FOR THIS PROOF: OK AS IS OK WITH CHANGES MAKE CHANGES
AND SEND ANOTHER PROOF
# C_2016343EN.01000301.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Außenstelle Linz — Austria) — Dilly’s Wellnesshotel GmbH v Finanzamt Linz

(Case C-493/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Aid scheme in the form of reductions in environmental taxes - Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 - Categories of aid which may be regarded as compatible with the internal market and exempt from the obligation to notify - Mandatory nature of the conditions for exemption - Article 3(1) - Express reference to that regulation in the aid scheme))

(2016/C 343/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht — Außenstelle Linz

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dilly’s Wellnesshotel GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Linz

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles [107 TFEU and 108 TFEU] (General block exemption Regulation) must be interpreted as meaning that the absence, in an aid scheme such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of an express reference to that regulation, by citing its title and publication reference in the Official Journal of the European Union, precludes that scheme from being considered to fulfil the conditions for exemption, under Article 25(1) of that regulation, from the obligation to notify laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1995
<CASH>                                      30,325,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               92,678,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (3,224,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 99,474,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           240,899,000
<PP&E>                                     545,491,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              75,987,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             899,567,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      119,174,000
<BONDS>                                    530,181,000
<COMMON>                                       136,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                 109,733,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               899,567,000
<SALES>                                    650,212,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           650,212,000
<CGS>                                      485,048,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              485,048,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,403,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          57,336,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (20,241,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (2,918,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (17,323,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (4,196,000)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (21,519,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.28)
        

</TABLE>
*DoD 4000.25-7-M, March 2004*

DLM 4000.25, Volume 4

**DIC FQ1/FQ2/GQ1/GQ2 FORMAT**

**BILLING FOR TRANSPORTATION**

136

	APPENDIX 3.21

1
No. 11-14.

#### Douglas J. DiBiasi, Petitioner v. Starbucks Corporation, et al.

565 U.S. 878, 132 S. Ct. 242,

181 L. Ed. 2d 138,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5297.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 414 Fed. Appx. 948.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 135 (Wednesday, July 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38167]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18782]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-309-000]


Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Technical 
Conference

July 9, 1998.
    On July 16, 1998, the staff of the Office of Pipeline Regulation 
(OPR) will conduct a technical conference with representatives of the 
Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company and Entrix, OPR's third party 
contractor for the Great Lakes 300 Expansion Project Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS). The purpose of the conference is to discuss the 
proposed schedule for the EIS and the timing for providing 
environmental information required for completion of the EIS.
    The conference will be held at the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    Although all interested parties may attend, only issues pertaining 
to the scheduling of environmental information needed to complete the 
EIS will be discussed.
    For further information, please contact Paul McKee at (202) 208-
1088.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18782 Filed 7-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 99.4


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Dr. Arol I. Buntzman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of EVCI Career Colleges Incorporated on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of EVCI Career Colleges
Incorporated.


Dated:  November 14, 2002                    /s/ Dr. Arol I. Buntzman
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Dr. Arol I. Buntzman
                                             Chief Executive Officer


I, Richard Goldenberg, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of EVCI Career Colleges Incorporated on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of EVCI Career Colleges
Incorporated.


Dated:  November 14, 2002                     /s/ Richard Goldenberg
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Richard Goldenberg
                                              Chief Financial Officer
No. 10-10897.

#### Kevin Allen Key, Petitioner v. Harold W. Clarke, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

565 U.S. 856, 132 S. Ct. 187,

181 L. Ed. 2d 96,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6200.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 401 Fed. Appx. 792.
No. 10-11121.

#### Carl Edward Dodson, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 868, 132 S. Ct. 217,

181 L. Ed. 2d 119,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6658.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 417 Fed. Appx. 357.
No. 10-10722.

#### Willie James Hodges, Petitioner v. Florida.

565 U.S. 846, 132 S. Ct. 164,

181 L. Ed. 2d 77,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6301.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of

certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.

*78Same case below, 55 So. 3d 515.
# C_2016211EN.01001401.xml

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — KA Finanz AG v Sparkassen Versicherung AG Vienna Insurance Group

(Case C-483/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rome Convention - Applicable law - Cross-border merger - Directive 78/855/EEC - Directive 2005/56/EC - Merger by acquisition - Protection of creditors - Transfer of all the assets and liabilities of the company being acquired to the acquiring company))

(2016/C 211/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KA Finanz AG

Defendant: Sparkassen Versicherung AG Vienna Insurance Group

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | EU law must be interpreted as meaning that:






  — | the law applicable following a cross-border merger by acquisition to the interpretation of a loan contract taken out by the acquired company, such as the contracts at issue in the main proceedings, to the performance of the obligations under the contract and to how those obligations are extinguished is the law which was applicable to the contract before the merger; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

EU law must be interpreted as meaning that:

—

the law applicable following a cross-border merger by acquisition to the interpretation of a loan contract taken out by the acquired company, such as the contracts at issue in the main proceedings, to the performance of the obligations under the contract and to how those obligations are extinguished is the law which was applicable to the contract before the merger;

| — | the provisions governing the protection of the creditors of the acquired company, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, are those of national law which were applicable to that company. |
| --- | --- |

—

the provisions governing the protection of the creditors of the acquired company, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, are those of national law which were applicable to that company.

| 2. | Article 15 of Third Council Directive 78/855/EEC of 9 October 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty concerning mergers of public limited liability companies, as amended by Directive 2009/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as granting rights to holders of securities, other than shares, to which special rights are attached, but not to the issuer of such securities. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 15 of Third Council Directive 78/855/EEC of 9 October 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty concerning mergers of public limited liability companies, as amended by Directive 2009/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as granting rights to holders of securities, other than shares, to which special rights are attached, but not to the issuer of such securities.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

---
Poly (sodium zinc itaconate)

Structure not shown