alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
p.1 

OAR Box 1784 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

59) ll-D-11 

Docket Number; 

A-84-44 

Printed 10/31/2008 8:05:40 AM Sheet 59 of 143 
P.2 

13 PENWALT 

CORPORATIO N 

PENNWALT BUILDING, THREE PARKWAY, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19102 

CHEMICALS • EQUIPMENT • HEALTH PRODUCTS 

November 19, 1985 

Mr. William Larry Elmore, P.E. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Dear Mr. Elmore: 

The information you require on Methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) 

follows the basic pattern of comparisons used for gas scrubbing 

amines. One such comparison is included on page 109 of the 

March 1982 issue of Hydrocarbon Processing. Where comparisons 

call for arbitrary values relative to other amines, the values 

on page 109 will be used as a basis. The information is as 

follows for MDEA. 

Molecular Weight 

Basicity (reactivity) 

Capacity (scf/gal) 

Corrosivity: design limitations 

Stripping Character: C02(Btu/lb) 

H_S(Btu/lb) 

Hydrocarbon Solubility: MDEA in liq. HC 

gas HC in MDEA 

Solvent losses (lb MDEA/MMscf of gas) 

Reclaiming 

Reboiler Temperature at 12 psig 

Thermal Properties Heat capacity 

G 180°F (Btu/lb°F) 

L/R exchanger heat 

trans, coeff. (Btu/hr) 

Thermal Stability 

Freezing Point (at typical sol'n cone.) 

Cost ($/lb) 

119 

4 

2-10 

20-50% solution 

0.25-0.75 m/m 

550 

Availability 

Application: 

450 

1 

1 

h-h 

None Required 

245 

0.90 

Very good 

-5°F 

1.10 in bulk 

(no. of major U.S. suppliers) 3 

pressure over 100 psig for natural 

specification 

limit on capacity 

gas, but no lower limit 

for tail gas clean up (TGCU) 

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER: (215) 587-755 0 
P.3 

Mercaptan Removal 

Chemical Degradation: H_S 

C0„ 

COS 

-2-

None 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

I hope this information will help you in your evaluations. 

If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to 

contact me. 

Very truly yours, 

L . 

PEMNW/&T, CORPORATION 

Christie 

Technical Service 

Industrial Chemicals 

CBJ/smb
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, 

BAXTER HEALTHCARE SA, AND 

BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

AND 

DEKA PRODUCTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC., 

FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE NORTH AMERICA, 

AND FRESENIUS USA, INC., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

____________________ 

2011-1268 

______________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California in No. 07-CV-1359, Judge 

Phyllis J. Hamilton. 
______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

DAVID K. CALLAHAN, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, of 

Chicago, Illinois, argued for plaintiffs-appellants Baxter 

Healthcare Corporation et al. With him on the brief were 

JESSICA C. KAISER, MICHAEL I. COHEN and RACHEL N.

FARRINGTON. MAUREEN K. TOOHEY, Toohey Law Group 

LLC, of Boston, Massachusetts, argued for plaintiffappellant Deka Products Limited Partnership. 

JUANITA R. BROOKS, Fish & Richardson P.C. of San 

Diego, California, argued for defendants-appellees. With 

her on the brief was MICHAEL E. FLOREY, of Minneapolis, 

Minnesota. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, MAYER, and REYNA, Circuit 

Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

February 13, 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2060-2061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-663]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

[Docket No. 090109011-9012-01]


Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
(NTIA), Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
(NTIA) publishes this notice to announce the effective date of an 
amendment to a Privacy Act System of Records entitled COMMERCE/NTIA-1, 
Applications Related to Coupons for Digital-to-Analog Converter Boxes. 
NTIA is amending this system of records for applications related to 
coupons for the Digital-to-Analog Converter Box program to allow for 
the collection of additional personally identifiable information, 
namely the collection of the name of the nursing home facility. 47 
C.F.R. Sec.  301; see also 73 Fed. Reg. 54,325 (Sept. 19, 2008).

DATES: The amendment to the system of records will be effective on 
January 14, 2009.

ADDRESSES: For a copy of the original and amended system of records 
notices please mail requests to Stacy Cheney, Attorney-Advisor, Office 
of the Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration, Room 4713, 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, 
DC 20231. A copy of these notices are also available on NTIA's website 
at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ ntiahome/frnotices/2007/System Records_
112007.pdf and http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2008/ FR--DTV 
records--081202.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacy Cheney, Attorney-Advisor, Office 
of the Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration, Room 4713, 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, 
DC 20231.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 2, 2008, NTIA published in the 
Federal Register a notice requesting comments on a proposed amendment 
to the Privacy Act System of Records entitled COMMERCE/NTIA-1, 
Applications Related to Coupons for Digital-to-Analog Converter Boxes. 
See, 73 Fed. Reg. 73,244 (Dec. 2, 2008). NTIA is amending this system 
of records for applications related to coupons for the Digital-to-
Analog Converter Box program to allow for the collection of additional 
personally identifiable information, namely the collection of the name 
of the nursing home facility. 47 C.F.R. Sec.  301; see also 73 Fed. 
Reg. 54,325 (Sept. 19, 2008). No comments were received in response to 
the request for comments. By this notice, NTIA is adopting the proposed 
amendments to the system of records as final without changes effective 
on January 14, 2009.


[[Page 2061]]


    Dated: January 9, 2009.
Brenda Dolan,
Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Officer, U.S. Department of 
Commerce.
[FR Doc. E9-663 Filed 1-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-60-S
[No. 30237-3-II.

Division Two.

May 25, 2004.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Albert Earl Van Buren, *Appellant.*

The unpublished opinion in this cause was *withdrawn*by order of the Court of Appeals dated July 13, 2003. Substitute opinion filed. See 123 Wn. App. 634.
#### H. H. Walden *v.*State Compensation Commissioner

(No. 7518)

Submitted January 31, 1933.

Decided February 7, 1933.

*W. W. Wertz*and *Sherman II. Ballard,*for rela'tor.

*Hoiuard B. Lee,*Attorney General and *R. Dennis Steed,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Hatcheh, Judge:

This proceeding is the aftermath of *Walden*v. *Commissioner,*decided by this court September 27, 1932, and reported *308in 166 S. E. 6. Relator now seeks mandamus to compel respondent to pay a portion of an award in a lump sum.

Relator was injured February 12, 1929, while in the employment of a subscriber to the Workmen’s Compensation Fund. He was allowed immediate temporary disability payments for 77-1/7 weeks, which expired in September, 1930. Following this, the Commissioner conducted an investigation to- determine the amount relator was entitled to as a permanent award. The investigation terminated on November 25, 1932, in the allowance of a 50% partial permanent award, or 200 weeks at $16.00 per week. Credit for the 77-1/7 weeks, already paid, was given, and weekly payments for the remainder of 122-6/7 weeks was fixed to begin on September 27, 1932. Relator alleges that he was in such destitute circumstances during the investigation that his poverty caused him to commit “an indiscretion” for which he now languishes in jail; that he is still destitute, and that it is an abuse of discretion for the commissioner to dole out his award in ■weekly installments when payments should have been made to him continuously following September, 1930. He prays that what should have been paid him from September, 1930, to September 27, 1932, be paid him now in a lump sum.

The commissioner answers that relator has yet several months of his jail sentence to serve, and “that his object in refusing to pay said compensation in a lump sum was solely to prevent dissipation thereof and to keep it intact so that it might be available to petitioner in the future as a supplement to his impaired earning power by reason of his said injury.”

Code 1931, 23-4-18, Code 1923, chapter 15P, section 42, provides: “Payments may be made in such periodical installments as may seem best to the commissioner in each case.” Mandamus does not lie to coerce an administrative officer in the performance of a discretionary act such as the statute confers upon the commissioner in this instance, except in case of caprice, passion, some ulterior motive or misapprehension of law. *State*v. Lane, 89 W. Va. 744, 110 S. E. 180. The circumstances pleaded herein do not bring the commissioner within the exception. See generally *Ferrel*v. *Commissioner,*108 W. Va. 477, 151 S. E. 706. Admit for the sake of argument (merely) that a lump sum for back pay*309ments did become due tbe relator on November 25, 1932; nevertheless, under the statute, the commissioner had the express right to pay that lump sum ‘1 in such periodical installments” as seemed best to him.

The writ is accordingly refused.

*Refused.*
Michael W. WALKER and Verna Walker, Appellant-Respondents, v. U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORP., 2004-GEL1, Respondent-Appellant;

Kozeny & McCubbin, L.C., and CSMA BLT, LLC., Respondents

WD 81527 Consol. With: WD 81563

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

DATE: JANUARY 8, 2019 Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied February 26, 2019

Jeffery T. Adams, Clinton, MO, Counsel for Appellant-Respondents.

James C. Morrow, Kansas City, MO, Counsel for Respondents.

Before Division Three: Gary D. Witt, Presiding Judge, Cynthia L. Martin, Judge, Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judge

**ORDER**

Per Curiam:

Michael and Verna Walker, plaintiffs below, appeal judgments entered by the Circuit Court of Jackson County granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants U.S. Bank, as Trustee for Structured Asset Securities Corp. 2004-GEL1 ("U.S. Bank"), Kozeny & McCubbin, L.C. ("K&M"), and CSMA BLT, LLC ("CSMA"). U.S. Bank cross-appeals the denial of its request for attorneys' fees. This appeal involves the validity of a real estate foreclosure sale. It involves similar facts and most of the same legal issues as those presented and decided in *Wesley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.* , No. WD81408 569 S.W.3d 436, 2018 WL 5913113 (Mo. App. W.D. Nov. 13, 2018). The analysis and result of that case controls the disposition of this one. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, the parties have been provided a memorandum. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 7, 2023

No. 04-22-00829-CV

Felipe N. GOMEZ,

Appellant

v.

Alan BRAID,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CI08302

Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant (plaintiff below) is Felipe N. Gomez. Appellee (defendant below) is Alan 

Braid. Intervenor Wolfgang P. Hirczy de Miño sought to intervene in the trial court. On 

December 12, 2022, the trial court signed an order dismissing both appellant’s and intervenor’s 

cases. For purposes of appeal, the order constituted a final, appealable judgment.

While appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, intervenor did not file a cross-notice of 

appeal. However, on January 18, 2023, intervenor filed in this court a “Motion to Dismiss or to 

Abate for Lack of Findings and Lack of Express Conclusions of Law,” and on January 27, 2023, 

intervenor filed in this court a “Motion to Dismiss for Mootness.”

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure authorize “parties” to an appeal to file a motion 

in this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a). Because intervenor did not file a cross-appeal, 

intervenor is not a party to this appeal. Accordingly, we may strike intervenor’s motions. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(k) (authorizing court to strike documents filed not in conformity with the 

Rules); see also City of Laredo v. Montano, No. 04-10-00401-CV, 2011 WL 5386600, at *1 

(Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 9, 2011, no pet.) (striking intervenors brief where intervenor did 

not file notice of appeal); Landon v. S & H Marketing Group, Inc., 82 S.W.3d 666, 685–86 (Tex.

App.—Eastland 2002, no pet.) (party to judgment who does not file a notice of appeal may not 

raise an appellate issue asserting a claim for affirmative relief).

It is therefore ORDERED that intervenor Wolfgang P. Hirczy de Miño show cause in 

writing, no later than February 17, 2023, why his motions should not be stricken.
It is so ORDERED February 7, 2023.

 PER CURIAM

 ATTESTED TO: ______________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certification of CEO under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002

 

*I certify that this periodic report containing theissuer’s financial statements fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78mor 78o(d)) and that information contained in this periodic report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the issuer.*

 

 
| * *                                | *By:*  | */s/  Keith C. Robbins*            |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|
|                                    |   |                               |
|                                    |   | President, Chief Executive Officer |
|                                    |   |                               |
| Date:  November 16, 2009 |   |                               |

 

----
Danielle JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106664

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

Filed: May 21, 2019

Kevin B. Gau, 1010 Market St. Ste. 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, For Movant/Appellant.

Robert J. Bartholomew, Jr., P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Defendant/Respondent.

Before Kurt S. Odenwald, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J., and Colleen Dolan, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

Danielle Johnson ("Movant") appeals the motion court's judgment denying the post-conviction relief claims asserted in his amended Rule 29.15 motion. Movant asserts two points on appeal. Finding that Movant has failed to demonstrate that the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion, we affirm the judgment of the motion court.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

June 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

136737 (3) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

LEROY MARKEITH SIMMONS,

 Plaintiff, 

v SC: 136737 

 AGC: 0615/08 

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, 0616/08 

 Defendant. 

___________________________________ 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $19.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court. 

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$731.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

 Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this 

Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order. 

jm 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 24, 2008 

Clerk
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION FURNISHED PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of Techwell, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Mark Voll, Vice President,Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge,that:

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

 
|   | /s/ MARK VOLL                              |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   | Mark Voll                                  |
|   | Vice President of Finance  and             |
|   | Administration and Chief Financial Officer |
|   | November 13,  2006                         |

 

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 12845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6496]



[[Page 12845]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Docket No. ER09-838-000]


Entegra Power Services LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

March 18, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Entegra Power Services LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC, 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.  
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is April 7, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St, NE., Washington, DC, 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance 
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3e787b6c7d71505257505b6d4b4e4e514c4a7e585b4c5d10595148"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="90d6d5c2d3dffefcf9fef5c3e5e0e0ffe2e4d0f6f5e2f3bef7ffe6">[email protected]</span></a>. 
or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-6496 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Fazon K. SWINTON, Appellant.

WD 81018

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: January 15, 2019 Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied February 26, 2019 Application for Transfer Denied April 30, 2019

Amanda Langenheim, Kansas City, MO, Counsel for Appellant.

Karen Kramer, Jefferson City, MO, Counsel for Respondent.

Before Division One: Lisa White Hardwick, P.J., Edward R. Ardini, and Thomas N. Chapman, JJ.

*154**ORDER**

Per Curiam:

Fazon Swinton (Swinton) appeals his conviction following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, for second degree murder, armed criminal action, attempted robbery in the second degree, and leaving the scene of a shooting. Swinton argues that the trial court plainly erred by not *sua sponte* striking a venireperson who had questioned how Swinton could establish self-defense without testifying and by admitting testimony, during the punishment phase of the trial, that Swinton had been associated with a criminal gang. We affirm. Rule 30.25(b).