alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Prepared Discussion of:

Pretreatment Targets for Salt Recovery from

Marcellus Shale Gas Produced Water

IWC

‐ 13

‐ 38

Jerry L. Penland

Chester Engineers

Moon Township, PennsylvaniaI have been the discusser on several of Dr. Silva and team’s previously presented papers. So it

was a bit difficult in reviewing this one to keep a focus on it. I found myself reflecting on

previous paper goals and statements. The progression has been interesting because the first

paper started with conceptual approaches in solving the NORM issue in Marcellus produced

fluids. Sulfate precipitation of the radium/barium components was thought to be too

expensive, and so alternate approaches for removal were to be investigated. Following papers

provided the findings of his investigations on these alternate methods. Ultimately the Sulfate

precipitation method proved to be the most effective one.

This paper demonstrates how this precipitation technology be most effectively used for

Radium/Barium removal when evaporation/crystallization is the chosen method of recovering

water from produced fluids. The recovered sodium chloride and lime sludge can be sent to a

class D landfill with a minimal level of treatment or used on roads for deicing with a higher level

of treatment. Barium/Radium/Strontium Sulfate sludge would be sent to Texas for disposal.

The purge, containing high concentrations of calcium chloride, sodium chloride, strontium and

magnesium chlorides would be disposed or potentially recovered.

The authors state that, “the purpose of this paper is to define produced water barium and

radium pretreatment specifications such that the recovered NaCl product meets Pennsylvania’s

co

‐ product determination for rock salt.” The paper explains the method in sufficient detail to

allow the reader to understand the approach. Both laboratory study and Aspen Plus/OLI

simulations are provided and show excellent correlation. The use of crystal SEM micrographs,

and other figures are effectively used to demonstrate critical points in the methodology

development process.

This is an excellent paper. I don’t believe, however, that the study demonstrates that “water

and salt recovery from Marcellus produced water is an economically attractive option,” since

insufficient information in provided in this paper to make that determination. Papers cited in

addressing this are not conclusive as well.

Two questions:

1. Will the overall process and simulation approach be available for public use?

2. From an application perspective and considering that a treatment plant will see varying

levels of barium/radium in the incoming produced waters from day to day, what would

the authors recommend for controlling the addition of sodium sulfate to maintain the

correct levels of barium/radium removal?
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50425 Summary Calendar

SULEMA C. ESTRELLA; JOSE ESTRELLA, III, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-99-CV-1000-FB

-------------------- December 13, 2000 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Estrellas appeal the dist rict court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants in this Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)

case. They first argue that the district court erred in determining that their cl aim was barred by the statute of limitations. The district court’s determination on this issue was

not erroneous, as the Estrellas failed to timely present their administrative claim to the appropriate agency. S ee 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b).No. 00-50425 -2-
The Estrellas next argue that the district court erred in determining that Dr. Washington was a Government employee for FTCA

purposes. The district court did not err, as Washington falls under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 233(g). The Estrellas’ final argument is that the case should have been remanded. This contention is not meritorious. The case was properly removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2). The Estrellas have failed to
show that the district court erred in denying their motion to remand and granting the d efendants’ motion for summary judgment. Consequently, the judgment of the lower court is AFFIRMED.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6936

XAVIER MILTON EARQUHART , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. UNITED STATES MARSHALS FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA; PIEDMONT REGIONAL JAIL , Respondents

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Liam O’Grady , Senior District Judge. ( 1:20

- cv
- 00620

- LO

- IDD )

Submitted : December 17, 2020 Decided: December 22, 2020

Before THACKER, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Xavier Milton Earquhart, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Xavier Milton Earquhart, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge his
convictions by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . Pursuant to § 2255(e) , a prisoner may challenge his convictions in a traditional writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention. [Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the leg ality of a conviction when: (1) at the time of conviction, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme Court established the legality of the conviction; (2) subsequent to the prisoner’s direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the substantive law changed such that the conduct of which the prisoner was convicted is deemed not to be criminal; and (3) the prisoner cannot satisfy the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255 because the new rule is not one of constitutional law.
In re Jones , 226 F.3d 328, 333

- 34 (4th Cir. 2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Earquhart v. U nited States Marshals for the E.
Dist

. of N. C. , No. 1 : 20

- cv
- 00620

- LO

- IDD (E.D. Va. June 11, 2020). We d ispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
TSG INDUSTRIES, INC.

, Appellant,

v.

ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY AND THE AUCHTER COMPANY

, Appellee s

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 1359

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 25, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Harvey L. Jay , Judge

. Leo H. Meirose, Jr. of Meirose & Associates, P.A., Tampa , for Appellant.

Tammy N. Giroux and Duane A. Daiker of Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP, Tampa; Christopher J. Mueller and Rhonda B. Boggess, Jacksonville , for Appellee s

.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS

, MAKAR

, and WINSOR

, J J

. , CONCUR.
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-64,326]

      ( print page 14588)    
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on October 27, 2008 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers and former workers of Ashland Cookies, LLC, Ashland, Ohio.

The petitioning workers have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of March 2009.

Elliott S. Kushner,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E9-7122 Filed 3-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Jeffrey Stroburg, Chief Executive Officer of Renewable Energy Group, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge the Special Financial Report on Form 10-K of the Company (the Report), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Dated: April 19, 2010 |  |  |  | /S/    JEFFREY
STROBURG
|                      |  |  |  | Jeffrey Stroburg       
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
Melissa FANNIN, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-1358

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed December 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
CHARLES TOWN.

#### Ex Parte Wait W. Richards.

Submitted September 2, 1903.

Decided September 5, 1903.

1. Adultehy.

Adultery or fornication is punishable only hy fine, and no imprisonment can he imposed, (p. 556).

Appeal from Circuit Court, Tucker County.

Petition by Wait W. Richards. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

*Reversed and prison&r released.*

James D. Smith, for respondent.

CuNNINGham & StalliNGS and L. Mansfield,, for petitioner.

*556BRAnnon, Judge:

Wait W. Richards is before this Court under a writ of *liar-leas corpus*awarded by Judge Dent asking discharge from imprisonment in the jail of Tucker County under *&*judgment of the circiut court of that county rendered in June, 1903, imposing upon him both a fine of $50.00 and imprisonment in jail for four months under a conviction upon an indictment for adultery and fornication.

Richards, by his writ of *habeas corpus,*contests the legality of so much of said judgment as imposes imprisonment.

Adultery was not a common law offense in England, but it was, perhaps, punishable in the ecclesiastical courts. Some American courts have held it a common law affence; but in Virginia it was held not a common law offence, and that it could be punishable only as statute prescribes. *Anderson*v. *Commonwealth,*and *Commonwealth*v. *Isaacs and*West, 5 Rand 627; *32*Am. Dec. 289; Clark Crim. Law 312. But our statutes makes adultery and'' fornication misdemeanors in Code, chapter 149, section 6, reading, “If any person commits adultery or fornication, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and fined not less than twenty dollars.” Thus the statute both creates tiie offence and fixes the punishment. It cannot be said that as it is a common law offence there may be both fine and imprisonment.

If the statute did not specify the punishment there could be imposed either fine or imprisonment or both under principles stated in *Ex parte*Garrison, 36 W. Va. 836. If the statute had simply stamped adultery as a misdemeanor, both or either of these punishments could be imposed; but the statute specifies the punishment. '

The specification of one punishment excludes any other. *Lynch*v. *Bank, 22*W. V. 554. We cannot think that as the Legislature considered the punishment, it only went half way. Indeed, we should rather sajr that knowing that a misdemeanor is punishable by both or either fine or imprisonment, it did not intend this act to be punished by imprisonment, because it prescribes only a fine. Even without section 3, chapter 152, Code, we would say that only a fine could be imposed; but that section logically all the more requires us to so hold, as it pro*557vides that “A common law offence for which punishment is prescribed by statute, shall he punished only in the mode so prescribed/’

If even it were a common law offence, we could only impose a fine.

So much of the' judgment as imposes imprisonment being entirely without law to support it, and being against the statute, and void, we must discharge the petitioner from custody.

*Éeversed and prisoner released.*
EXHIBIT
32.2



CERTIFICATION
OF CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Thomas J. Kelleher, certify
that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this report
on Form 10-K/A of B. Riley Financial, Inc.;
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this
report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: April 22, 2020



| | /s/ THOMAS J. KELLEHER    
| | --------------------------
| | Thomas J. Kelleher        
| | Co-Chief Executive Officer
| | (Director)
Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

March 24, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129529 & (117) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEARL LEWIS, Individually and as Personal Stephen J. Markman, Representative of the Estate of Mason Lewis, Justices Deceased, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 129529 

 COA: 252712 
 Wayne CC: 01-123121-NI

ST. JOHN HOSPITAL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 23, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should now be reviewed by this Court. The 

motion to disqualify Chief Justice Taylor and Justices Corrigan, Young, and Markman is 

DENIED. 

WEAVER, J., dissents and states as follows: 

I do not participate in the decision regarding the motion to disqualify Chief Justice 

Taylor and Justices Corrigan, Young, and Markman. 

I am opposed to the entry of any order in this case at this time and would hold this 

case in abeyance until this Court publishes proposals for public comment, places the issue 

on a public hearing for administrative matters, resolves, and makes clear for all to know 

the proper procedures for handling motions for the disqualification of Supreme Court 

justices from participation in a case. This Court opened an administrative file on the 

question on May 20, 2003, but has yet to address the matter publicly. See ADM 2003-26. 

The question regarding the participation or nonparticipation of justices frequently 

recurs and is a matter of public significance because even one justice’s decision to 

participate or not participate can affect the decision and outcome in a case. See Advocacy 
 _________________________________________ 

 

2 

Org for Patients & Providers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 472 Mich 91, 96-101 (2005) 

(Weaver, J., concurring). 

KELLY, J., states as follows: 

I do not participate in the decision to deny the motion to disqualify. I agree with 

Justice Weaver in urging the Court to establish a particularized written procedure to 

handle motions to disqualify a Supreme Court justice from participation in a case. 

CAVANAGH, J., joins the statement of KELLY, J. 

t0321 

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. 

March 24, 2006 

Clerk
2. IL^m^"*"*—^ -<^^ ^o^l^ cJ^.^crf flfpf>*-*( L*-(<^ .'a/

i rO I{2v*^J s - 

### •ttsSSgy Ff8 0220(5 

## XS>~*s 5^^ ^^ -tf. /12-?V$ g"
Robert BLAKE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D15-1753

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Scott Allen MOORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1493

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
32.2





Certification
of Chief Financial Officer


Under
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Daleco Resources Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009, I, Gary J.
Novinskie, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(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 result of operations of the Company.





Dated:  February
      12, 2010
                  /s/ Gary J. NovinskieGary
      J. NovinskieChief
      Financial Officer
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2014

- 0940 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2014

- NE

- 15

- AD
If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into an d then out of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

co st (@$8 5 /h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Modify p ower t urbine (PT)

c ontainment r ing by installing

r einforcement l iner 8.0 $ 680.00 $ 

### 6 , 782 $ 7,462.00 

### 111 $ 828,282.00



### (SP3478EN

- E) $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.0 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00


### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 828,282 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

**On**

**- Condition Costs:** 
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cos t Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### : 

### N/A

**Executive Order 12866:**
Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?
YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**
Is the AD significant?
YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for
either a Yes or No answe r. YES NO Explanatio n: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:**
This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?
YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
Damien D. FREEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1605

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   We, the undersigned, Kelvin B. Campbell, President (Principal Executive Officer) and R. Michael Stunden, Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer) of York Resources, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  (1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of § 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 Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.  /s/Kelvin B. Campbell Kelvin B. Campbell President (Principal Executive Officer)  December 1, 2009  /s/R. Michael Stunden R. Michael Stunden Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)  December 1, 2009  A signed original of this written statement required by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[4910-13-P)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOHTA TION Federal Aviation Administration 14CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-20**-*****; Directorate Identifier 2012-SW .. 067-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthine~;s Directiyes; Robinson Helicopter Company (Rohinson) AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice ofproposed rulcmaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: Wepropose to adopt anew (11m'orLi"Jiness directive (AD) (or Model R22, R22 Alpha, R22 Beta, and R22 Mariner helicopters with certain fuel shut-offvalve~ installed. Thi~:proposed AD would require l'eplacing thEfuel shut-off valve with ar,ewer design fuel shut-off valve. This propostO AD is prompted by three accidents that occurred because the fuel shut-off val\'e was inadvertently moved tothe "off' position. The proposed actions are intended to prevent inadve11entdosing cfthe fuel valve, which could result in engine power loss aJldsubsequ~llt loss ofcontrol ofthe hdicopter. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLlCA'i'ION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ADDRESSE~~: You may send comments by any ofthe following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to 11Up:ll\'vww.regulati()ns.go~.Follo"" the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.
• Fax: 202-493-2251. CO~CUA.R[NC£S ROVTI'G SYMBOL AD Coord.

ROUTI1"lG S\"I'o1BOI. ASW112MGR INITIALSlSI(; DATE
ROUTl~G SYMBOL FTW AEG INITIAlSISlC DAn: R()l;TISG S\':\IBOL MIO/MIDO INIT!A LSJSIC DATE ROUTINe; SV!\IBOL ASW-7 INITIALSJSIG DAn:
ROVtl:'liC SYMBOL ASW-101 JMn.-'l5ISIG .DATE ROllTII\C SV,\IOOL ASW-100 SITlAIJSIG DATE • Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department ofTransportation, Docket