alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Cassidy Mike [mailto:MICHAEL.CASSIDY@kohler.com]

Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 8:35 AM

To: Barnett, Keith

Cc: Nizich, Sharon

Subject: RE: Link to proposed NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; 

and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing is enclosed

Keith and Sharon,

Attached is a request to extend the public comment period for the proposed Clay MACT rule by 60 

days, until approximately April 18, 2015. Is this e-mail request sufficient for EPA’s consideration, or 

must I submit a hard copy via mail to you, or must a request be submitted to the docket? How long 

will it take EPA to render a decision on this request? Thank you.

Mike

Michael J. Cassidy

EHS Specialist

Kohler Co.

444 Highland Drive

Mail Stop 009

Kohler, WI 53044

p. (920) 457-4441, x 77263

f. (920) 459-1682

mike.cassidy@kohler.com

Save money. Save water. Support Habitat for Humanity. Visit www.SaveWaterAmerica.com

<<Clay MACT Public Comment Period Extension Request Dec 2014.pdf>>
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4784 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain Bureau of Land 

Management land to the City of Eugene, Oregon. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2006 

Mr. DEFAZIO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain 

Bureau of Land Management land to the City of Eugene, 

Oregon. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Eugene Land Convey5 ance Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 

8 (1) CITY.—The term ‘‘City’’ means the city of 

9 Eugene, Oregon. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4784 IH 

1 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

2 the Secretary of the Interior. 

3 SEC. 3. CONVEYANCE TO THE CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the 

5 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall convey 

6 to the City, without consideration and subject to all valid 

7 existing rights, all right, title, and interest of the United 

8 States in and to the land described in subsection (b)(1) 

9 for the purposes of— 

10 (1) establishing a wildlife viewing area; and 

11 (2) the construction and operation of an envi12 ronmental education center. 

13 (b) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.— 

14 (1) IN GENERAL.—The land referred to in sub15 section (a) is the parcel of approximately 12 acres 

16 of land under the administrative jurisdiction of the 

17 Bureau of Land Management in Lane County, Or18 egon, as depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Red House 

19 Property’’ and dated April 11, 2005. 

20 (2) SURVEY.— 

21 (A) IN GENERAL.—The exact acreage and 

22 legal description of the land described in para23 graph (1) shall be determined by a survey ac24 ceptable to the Secretary, including an existing 

25 survey. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
3 

•HR 4784 IH 

1 (B) COST.—If the Secretary determines 

2 that a new survey of the land is required, the 

3 City shall be responsible for paying the cost of 

4 the survey. 

5 (c) REVERSION.— 

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary determines 

7 that the land conveyed under subsection (a) is not 

8 being used for the purposes described in that sub9 section— 

10 (A) all right, title, and interest in and to 

11 the land (including any improvements to the 

12 land) shall revert to the United States; and 

13 (B) the United States shall have the right 

14 of immediate entry to the land. 

15 (2) HEARING.—Any determination of the Sec16 retary under paragraph (1) shall be made on the 

17 record after an opportunity for a hearing. 

18 (d) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The 

19 Secretary may require such additional terms and condi20 tions for the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Sec21 retary determines to be appropriate to protect the inter22 ests of the United States. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Tenth Circuit

Byron White United States Courthouse

1823 Stout Street

Denver, Colorado 80294

(303) 844-3157

Patrick J. Fisher, Jr. Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk Chief Deputy Clerk

November 23, 1998

TO: ALL RECIPIENTS OF THE ORDER AND JUDGMENT

RE: 98-1246, United States v. Nichols

Filed on November 18, 1998

The order and judgment filed on November 18, 1998, contains a typographical

error. On page two, in the final paragraph, the third sentence should appear as

follows:

Relying on our opinion in number 98-1247, we now affirm the district

court’s decision with respect to this appeal.

A copy of the corrected order and judgment is attached for your convenience.

Sincerely,

Patrick Fisher, Clerk of Court

By: Keith Nelson

Deputy Clerk

encl.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

NOV 18 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

TERRY LYNN NICHOLS,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 98-1246

(D.C. No. 96-CR-68-M)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

PER CURIAM .

After examining the preliminary record and materials on file, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument is unnecessary in this matter. See

Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.

Defendant Terry Lynn Nichols appeals from the district court’s June 24,

1998 order rescinding certain restrictions which prohibited the government from
-2-

cooperating fully with state authorities investigating the bombing of the Alfred P.

Murrah federal building on April 19, 1995. The issue which Mr. Nichols raises

on appeal is the exact same one addressed in appeal number 98-1247, United

States v. McVeigh , 157 F.3d 809 (10th Cir. 1998). In that published decision, we

held the district court did not abuse its discretion in lifting the prior prohibition

on cooperation with state authorities. Id. at 815.

Mr. Nichols joined that parallel proceeding as an intervenor on August 17,

1998. He filed briefs as well as a petition for rehearing. Relying on our opinion

in number 98-1247, we now affirm the district court’s decision with respect to

this appeal. The stay entered in this matter via our order of July 7, 1998, is

dissolved. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court

Per Curiam
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS OF AKI HOLDING CORP. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED  SEPTEMBER
30,  2000 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         802
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  29,530
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,005
<INVENTORY>                                    9,555
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               39,867
<PP&E>                                         27,918
<DEPRECIATION>                                 11,126
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 230,736
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          17,122
<BONDS>                                        151,503
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     59,420
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   230,736
<SALES>                                        31,630
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               31,630
<CGS>                                          18,825
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  18,825
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               45
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4,404
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,402
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,465
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            937
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   937
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
<page> EXHIBIT 32.02

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Morgan Stanley Charter
WCM L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Lee Horwitz,
Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management Corporation, the
general partner of the Partnership, 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:
(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
results of operations of the Partnership.









By: /s/ Lee Horwitz

Name:	   Lee Horwitz
Title:  Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management Corporation,
		   the general partner of the Partnership

Date:   May 15, 2007
Provisional 11/16

NSN: 

*************************

*MONOGRAPH NO: 

M7EP

*************************

(LLNS)

Item:

Beverage bases (Powdered), Sweetened with nutritive sweetener, Lemon-lime, Fortified 

with ascorbic acid and enhanced with maltodextrin (Type II, Flavor 4, Formulation e)

Document: CID A-A-20098, Beverage Bases (Powdered) and PKG&QAP

Approximate Caloric Value Per Serving: 130 Component Classification: Secondary

Estimated Shelf Life: 36 months at 80°F

Item Characteristics

Appearance:

Dehydrated product: Uniformly blended, free flowing, and a homogenous dry mixture 

free of hard lumps. Granulation can vary from fine powder to small agglomerated 

crystals.

Rehydrated product: Bright pale green, sediment free, clear to slightly cloudy.

Odor: Rehydrated product: Lemon-lime, sweet and sour.

Flavor: Rehydrated product: Lemon-lime, sweet and sour.

Texture: Dehydrated product: Free of hard lumps.

Rehydrated product: Fully dissolve within two minutes with constant stirring.

Possible Deteriorative Changes

Appearance: Rehydrated: Coagulated, jelled, surface frothing, or cloudiness, excessive sediment 

significantly affecting aesthetic appearance or flavor.

Odor: Burnt, scorched, moldy/mildew.

Flavor: Oxidized or any other flavor not typical of the type of beverage.

Texture: Lumpy or caked, not free flowing.

Unique Examination/Test Procedures

Prepare beverage IAW package instructions. Product should dissolve completely within about two 

minutes.

Special Notes
Provisional 11/16

NSN: 

*************************

*MONOGRAPH NO: 

M7EP

*************************

(LLNS)

If slight sedimentation and clouding are observed but the odor and flavor are normal, do not score the 

sedimentation as a defect during surveillance inspection; make note of it in the narrative for future use. 

Coagulation/gelation may occur if the original formulation was incorrect or if the product has been 

temperature abused for a long time. Coagulation / gelation results in clumps of granules that do not 

readily dissolve when product is reconstituted. Particles tend to float in suspension (look like gel pockets 

or tapioca granules that are clumped together).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          17,037
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,302
<ALLOWANCES>                                       532
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       3,673,913
<DEPRECIATION>                                 288,976
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,646,162
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      1,534,327
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,951,007
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,646,162
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               432,250
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  197,032
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              79,123
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                102,223
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             97,151
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   183,356
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.50


</TABLE>
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3579 

To direct the Postmaster General to conduct a study on retrofitting mail 

collection boxes with narrow mail slots to prevent theft of mail, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 27, 2019 

Ms. MENG (for herself, Mr. ROSE of New York, Mr. ESPAILLAT, Mr. SEAN

PATRICK MALONEY of New York, Mr. PAYNE, and Miss RICE of New 

York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To direct the Postmaster General to conduct a study on 

retrofitting mail collection boxes with narrow mail slots 

to prevent theft of mail, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Keep Mail Safe Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. USPS REPORT ON RETROFITTING MAIL COLLEC6 TION BOXES WITH NARROW MAIL SLOTS. 

7 Not later than 90 days after the date of the enact8 ment of this Act, the Postmaster General shall submit a 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3579 IH

1 report on retrofitting mail collection boxes to the Commit2 tees on Appropriations and Oversight and Reform of the 

3 House of Representatives and the Committees on Appro4 priations and Homeland Security and Governmental Af5 fairs of the Senate. Such report shall include the following: 

6 (1) A strategic plan, to be used by the United 

7 States Postal Service, to retrofit all mail collection 

8 boxes with narrow mail slots to prevent theft of the 

9 mail. 

10 (2) The total estimated cost of carrying out 

11 such plan, the estimated length of time necessary to 

12 carry out such plan, and any other resources nec13 essary to carry out such plan. 

14 (3) With respect to any mail collection boxes 

15 that have been retrofitted on the date of the enact16 ment of this Act, information on the location of such 

17 boxes, the security enhancements made to such 

18 boxes, and the reasons for retrofitting such boxes. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
No. 11-7475.

#### Angel Murillo, Petitioner v. Maribel Penaloza.

565 U.S. 1167, 132 S. Ct. 1114,

181 L. Ed. 2d 996,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 764.

January 17, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
No. 11-412.

#### City of Moundridge, Kansas, et al., Petitioners v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al.

565 U.S. 1073, 132 S. Ct. 777,

181 L. Ed. 2d 508,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8404.

November 28, 2011.

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

Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 409 Fed. Appx. 362.
No. 09-8000.

#### Travis Ray Thompson, Petitioner v. Fernando Gonzalez, Acting Warden, et al.

559 U.S. 947, 130 S. Ct. 1524,

176 L. Ed. 2d 127,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1310.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 11-6185.

#### John Carlo Manigaulte, Petitioner v. C.W. Post of Long Island University.

565 U.S. 1175, 132 S. Ct. 1138,

181 L. Ed. 2d 1012,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 622.

January 17, 2012.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 US. 986, 132 S. Ct. 517, 181 L. Ed. 2d 364, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 7889.
No. 11-7502.

#### Paul Blinkinsop, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1133, 132 S. Ct. 1055,

181 L. Ed. 2d 774,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 60.

January 9, 2012.

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

Same case below, 606 F.3d 1110.
----

Exhibit 31.2 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Lijun Peng, certify that: 

I have reviewed this quarterly reporton Form 10-QSB of CHINA AGRITECH, INC.; 

Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report; 

Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 

The small businessissuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))******for the small business issuer and have:

(a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and 

I disclosed in thisreport any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting; and 

The small businessissuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the smallbusiness issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small businessissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: May 22, 2006  

/s/ Lijun PengLijun Peng Chief Financial Officer 

----
#### ARCo v. 2nd Judicial District

OP 16-0555

11/29/16

Denied

Original Proceeding Over length brief
No. 11-7271.

#### Roger Ray Crumblin, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1127, 132 S. Ct. 1037,

181 L. Ed. 2d 763,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 27.

January 9, 2012.

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

Same case below, 441 Fed. Appx. 180.
The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 1

the Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2776

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Southern District of Iowa.

Adeniji A. Adaralegbe, * 

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: February 6, 1998 

 Filed: February 23, 1998

___________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Adeniji A. Adaralegbe, a federal prisoner, appeals from the district court&s order 1

revoking his supervised release and imposing 10 months imprisonment. While

Adaralegbe was serving a supervised release term for a prior conviction, he was

arrested and charged with three counts of forgery and one count of fraudulent practice

in violation of Iowa law. The district court held a revocation hearing and, after

considering the testimony of several witness and the exhibits that were introduced,
-2-

revoked Adaralegbe&s supervised release. On appeal, Adaralegbe argues that the

government failed to present sufficient evidence to show he committed the charged

violations of Iowa law underlying the revocation of his supervised release. 

After considering the evidence as a whole, we are satisfied that it was sufficient

to permit the district court to find by a preponderance of the evidence that Adaralegbe

committed the charged violations of Iowa law. See 18 U.S.C § 3583(e)(3) (court may

revoke defendant&s supervised release if court finds by preponderance of the evidence

that defendant violated supervised release condition). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.