alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 06726

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name3

Description

x 06726\06726_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

x 06726\06726_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06726\06726_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06726\06726_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06726\06726_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06726\06726_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06726\06726_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

06726\Certification Statement Plant ID_06726.pdf Plant certification statement

06726\Supporting Documentation\06726_MAP-1 Schuylkill Part A.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 06726\Supporting Documentation\06726_WB-1 Schuylkill Part A.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

06726\06726_Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Checklist Workbook

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

3

 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
----

EFTA Surveillance Authority inquiry in the electricity sector

(2005/C 196/10)

On 22 June the EFTA Surveillance Authority decided to open an inquiry under Article 17 of Chapter II of Protocol 4 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement (case 57828) into the electricity sector. The Advisory Committee expressed its favourable opinion. For information purposes the text of the decision is made available on the EFTA Surveillance Authority's official website www.eftasurv.int.

----
Exhibit 31.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Richard P. Kundrat,  Chief  Financial  Officer of NuVim,  Inc, Inc.,  certify
that:

1. I have reviewed  this  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of NuVim,  Inc. for the
period ended September 30, 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.  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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and 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) 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

(c)  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  that  has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely  to
materially affect, the registrant's  internal control over financial  reporting;
and

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
functions):

(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

                                       34
<PAGE>

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.

Date: November 13, 2008

/s/ Richard P. Kundrat

Richard P. Kundrat, Chief Financial Officer

                                       35
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28508]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENDA

TIME AND DATE: 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2018.

PLACE: NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 
20594.

STATUS: The one item is open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 5292 Aircraft Accident Report--Uncontained 
Engine Failure and Subsequent Fire, American Airlines Flight 383, 
Boeing 767-323, N345AN, Chicago, Illinois, October 28, 2016.

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Telephone: (202) 314-6100. The press and public may 
enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour prior to the meeting for set 
up and seating.
    Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact 
Rochelle McCallister at (202) 314-6305 or by email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a6f4c9c5cec3cacac388ebc5e5c7cacacfd5d2c3d4e6c8d2d5c488c1c9d0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4f1d202c272a23232a61022c0c2e2323263c3b2a3d0f213b3c2d61282039">[email protected]</span></a> by Wednesday, January 17, 2018.
    The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by 
accessing a link under ``News & Events'' on the NTSB home page at 
www.ntsb.gov.
    Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also 
available at www.ntsb.gov.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Candi Bing at (202) 314-6403 or by email 
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ed8f84838a8ead83999e8fc38a829b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d2b0bbbcb5b192bca6a1b0fcb5bda4">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR MEDIA INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Knudson at (202) 314-6100 or by 
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7101140514035f1a1f0415021e1f311f0502135f161e07"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6010051405124e0b0e1504130f0e200e1413024e070f16">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: December 29, 2017.
LaSean McCray,
Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-28508 Filed 12-29-17; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 7533-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 85-1083.

No. 85-6019.

#### Moeckly *v.*United States; and Coulombe *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Rosemary R. CHAPMAN, Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee FOR HSI ASSET SECURITIZATION CORPORATION TRUST 2007-OPT1, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-OPT1, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-3169

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed October 31, 2017 Rehearing Denied December 4, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Eric Andre JAMES v. STATE

CR-15-0776

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 28, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
Alvin Leroy MORTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. SC17-1715

Supreme Court of Florida.

[February 2, 2018]

James Vincent Viggiano, Jr., Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Julissa R. Fontán, Maria E. DeLiberato and Chelsea Shirley, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle Region, Temple Terrace, Florida, for Appellant

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Scott A. Browne, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Appellee

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Alvin Leroy Morton's appeal of the circuit court's order denying Morton's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. *See* art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

Morton's motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in *Hurst v. Florida*, --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision on remand in *Hurst v. State* (*Hurst* ), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), *cert. denied*, --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). This Court stayed Morton's appeal pending the disposition of *Hitchcock v. State*, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), *cert. denied*, --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). After this Court decided *Hitchcock*, Morton responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why *Hitchcock* should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Morton's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Morton is not entitled to relief. Morton was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder. *Morton v. State*, 789 So.2d 324, 327 (Fla. 2001). Following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one on both counts, the trial court sentenced Morton to death on both counts, and his sentences became final in 2001. *Id.* at 328. Thus, *Hurst* does not apply retroactively to Morton's sentences of death. *See**Hitchcock*, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Morton's motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Morton, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.

LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.

PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.

*244I concur in result because I recognize that this Court's opinion in *Hitchcock v. State*, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), *cert. denied*, --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in *Hitchcock*.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Keith Neil ESTES, Appellant.

No. ED 106333

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: February 13, 2019

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: Katherine P. Curry, 1000 West Nifong Blvd., Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203.

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: Eric Schmitt, Attorney General, Julia E. Rives, Asst. Attorney General, P. O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0899.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J. and Robert G. Dowd, Jr. and Mary K. Hoff, JJ.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM.

Keith Estes appeals from the judgment entered on his convictions after a jury trial for felony possession of heroin and misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia with intent to use. There was no error in the exclusion of evidence, nor in the prosecutor's closing argument. We affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
Frederick D. WILLIAMS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1330

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Glen T. JONES, Jr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1641

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21-0539 

# FILED RAS JAHMIKES MATTA, 

### NOV 02 2021

Petitioner and Appellant,

v. STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiffand Appellee. Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of rviorttana OR[)ER

Ras Jahmikes Matta moves this Court for appointment of counsel in his appeal. Matta provides that he was convicted ofa crime. He states that he is indigent and that he cannot afford an attorney. Matta believes that hemeets the eligibility requirements for the appointment ofcounsel. Matta appeals an October 14, 2021 Yellowstone County District Court's denial of his petition for postconviction relief. There is no right to the appointment ofcounsel in a postconviction proceeding for relief, although a court may order the assignment ofcounsel under the circumstances outlined in § 46-8-104, MCA. Matta represented himselfin the DistrictCourt. Mattahas not demonstrated that extraordinary circumstancesexist to

### justify appointment ofcounsel, pursuant to § 46-8-104(3), MCA. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Matta's Motion for Court Appointed Counsel is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to counsel ofrecord and to Ras Jahrnikes Matta with a copy ofthis Court's Appellate Handbook. 4 4 DATED this day ofNovember, 2021. For the Court,

ChiefJustice 11/02/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0539
Lesley FOSTER and Ronald Foster, Appellants, v. PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Successor by Merger to National City Bank, as Successor by Merger to National City Mortgage Co., Appellee.

No. 4D16-3284

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[December 21, 2017]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### CONNECTICUT RAILWAY & LIGHTING CO. v. PALMER et al.

No. 81.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Dec. 11, 1942.

George W. Martin, of New York City (Emmet, Marvin & Martin, of New York City, on the brief), for appellant.

Hermon J. Wells, of New Haven, Conn. (J. H. Gardner, Jr., of New Haven, Conn., on the brief), for appellees.

Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CLARK, and FRANK, Circuit Judges.

CLARK, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order denying the petition of the Connecticut Railway and Lighting Company for an allowance, to be paid out of the estate of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company — currently in reorganization under § 77, 11 U.S.C.A. § 205 — for expenses incurred in proving a claim for damages from the rejection of a lease by the New Haven.

In 1935, the New Haven filed its petition for reorganization under § 77, and shortly thereafter rejected its 999-year lease of certain transportation properties from the Connecticut Railway and Lighting Company. For the next five years the Connecticut Railway and Lighting Company engaged in a successful, but expensive, litigation to prove a claim for damages. See In re New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 2 Cir., 95 F.2d 483; Connecticut Railway & Lighting Co. v. Palmer, 305 U.S. 493, 59 S.Ct. 316, 83 L.Ed. 309; Connecticut Railway & Lighting Co. v. Palmer, 2 Cir., 109 F.2d 568; Palmer v. Connecticut Railway & Lighting Co., 311 U.S. 544, 61 S.Ct. 379, 85 L.Ed. 336. Herein, it has sought an allowance from the New Haven estate for the expenses (including attorneys’ fees) thereby incurred by it.

The case is controlled by Warren v. Palmer, 2 Cir., 132 F.2d 665, decided concurrently with it; for the reasons there set forth, we affirm the order of the district court denying the allowance.
Michael TRAMEL, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

CASE NO. 1D17-2116

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Vanderren ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-1427

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed December 29, 2017

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Ali L. Hansen, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Samuel Perrone, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Vanderren Robinson was convicted, after a jury trial, of two counts of armed robbery. On appeal, he challenges the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence on each count. The State properly concedes that the trial court erred in imposing a mandatory minimum sentence on Count II because the information did not sufficiently allege that Robinson possessed a firearm during the commission of the offense. *See* § 775.087(2), Fla. Stat. (2015) ; *Young v. State* , 86 So.3d 541, 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) ("[I]n order for a court to enhance a defendant's sentence based on section 775.087(2), the grounds for enhancement must be clearly charged in the information." (citing *Adams v. State* , 916 So.2d 36, 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) )). We otherwise affirm.

On remand, the trial court shall strike the mandatory minimum sentence imposed on Count II. Robinson does not need to be present for resentencing.

AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED.

SAWAYA, EVANDER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Rodney LOCKETT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2233

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
PINGORA LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Lindsey B. PAHLCK, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-5373

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 03, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### City of New York, Respondent, v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Appellant, Rent Stabilization Association of New York City et al., Intervenors-Appellants, and Met Council on Housing et al., Intervenors-Respondents.

[718 NYS2d 70]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Leland De-Grasse, J.), entered June 16, 2000, *inter alia,*declaring Local Law No. 73 (1997) of the City of New York to be lawful in all respects, and directing the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) to issue maximum base rent orders in accordance with Local Law 73 for the 1996/1997, 1998/1999 and all subsequent cycles, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to delete the direction to DHCR, and to replace it with a declaration that DHCR’s existing interim maximum base rent orders are deemed final orders, and a directive that, upon exhaustion of all appellate remedies, DHCR is to notify all affected landlords and tenants accordingly, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

*278The IAS Court correctly held that Local Law 73, which amended Administrative Code of the City of New York § 26-405 (a) (3) to provide that “[c]apital value shall be equalized assessed valuation based upon the appropriate tax class ratio which is established pursuant to article twelve of the real property tax law” instead of RPTL article 12-A, is not in violation of the Urstadt Law (McKinney’s Uncons Laws of NY § 8605 [Local Emergency Housing Rent Control Act § 5 (L 1962, ch 21, § 5, as amended)]) barring any housing accommodations “presently subject to regulation and control” from being “subjected to more stringent or restrictive provisions of regulation and control than those presently in effect.” There is no evidence to support the landlords’ assertion that the City Council’s decision in 1970, upon enactment of original Administrative Code § 26-405 (a) (3), to use the article 12-A ratio as the means for calculating value was intended as a benefit guaranteeing a preferred rate of return regardless of its accuracy as a determinant of value, and that no other, more accurate determinant of value could ever be used. Moreover, when the Urstadt Law was enacted in 1971 (L 1971, ch 372), Administrative Code § Y51-5.0 (a) (4) (now Administrative Code § 26-405 [a] [4]) clearly contemplated adjustments in the landlords’ return on capital in providing that “[t]he return allowed on capital value may be revised from time to time by local law.” Thus, there is no basis for construing Local Law 73 as anything more than a limited change in the “return” formula necessary to ensure a more accurate reflection of capital value. As the IAS Court concluded, in changing how to calculate an existing input, capital value, in the maximum base rent formula, Local Law 73 does not impose upon landlords any new regulations or controls. We modify only to relieve DHCR of the administrative burden of having to reissue, as final, orders that it has already issued on an interim basis. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Williams, Tom, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Election Assistance Commission

# AGENCY:

U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice of Public Meeting (Summit) Agenda—EAC Summit: The 2018 Federal Election.

# DATE & TIME:

 Wednesday, January 10, 2018, 9:00 a.m.-3:30 p.m.-EDT (Registration Opens at 9:00 a.m.).

# PLACE:

 The National Press Club, Holeman Lounge, 529 14th Street NW, 13th Floor, Washington, DC 20045.

                        (On Site Contact: 202-897-9285;                         *bsoder@eac.gov*).                    

# AGENDA:

 Commissioners will hold a public meeting (summit) to moderate panel discussions on the following topics: (1) Election Security; (2) Voting Accessibility; and (3) Election Data.

Ahead of the 2018 midterm elections, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) will host an all-day summit to highlight a spectrum of issues that state and local election officials will face as they work to administer a secure, accessible and efficient 2018 Election. Commissioners and attendees will hear from keynote speakers and expert panelists who will address topics such as election security, voting accessibility, and how to use election data to improve the voter experience.

This event is free and open to the public. Due to limited space, registration is strongly recommended. The summit will be recorded and available at a later date. There is no livestream scheduled.

# ATTENDANCE:

                         Attendees should register via                         *https://www.eac.gov/​events/​2018/​01/​10/​eac-summit-the-2018-federal-election-accessibility-critical-infrastructure-cybersecurity-emergencycontingency-planning-security/​.*

# STATUS:

 This meeting will be open to the public.

# PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

 Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (301) 563-3961.

Signed:

Bryan Whitener,

Director of National Clearinghouse on Elections, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

[FR Doc. 2017-28500 Filed 12-29-17; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 4810-71-P
Daneal Jusmon IRONS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-47

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed November 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
STATE EX REL. John H. WILLIAMS, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2016-KH-1896

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 9, 2018

Denied.