alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### RE: volume (sorry!) Terri Zick to: Todd Ramaly Cc: Christopher Lambesis 03/20/2008 03:13 PM

From: To: Cc: Terri Zick <tzick@cticompanies.com >

Todd Ramaly/R5/USEPA/US@EPA Christopher Lambesis/R5/USEPA/US@EPA

Hi ToddI was at a project site without e-mail & just got your note, so I am sorry for the delay in getting with you.
You are correct that I should have specified the unit of measure for maximum amount of waste as a volume (in cubic yards)rather as a mass (tons). The conversion factor of .69 (based on historic loads) is correct, and I believe that results in a maximum volume of 243.5 cubic yards based on 168 tons of material.
This differs slightly from the 249 yds3 listed below, so please feel free to double check my math! The bottom line is that the conversion factor of 0.69 is accurate, and the total maximum weight expected is 168 tons.
Thank you for your thorough review of this information! Terri Zick 313-300-7401
Original Message From: Ramaly.Todd@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Ramaly.Todd@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 6:47 PM To: Terri Zick Cc: Lambesis.Christopher@epamail.epa.gov Subject: volume (sorry!)

Terri,
You responded as follows to the volume question:
"We had the opportunity to discuss the maximum anticipated volume of filter cake, and believe that 168 tons (as initially described in Section 2 of the delisting petition) will be a conservative waste generation volume for the purposes of establishing a maximum annual waste generation rate. We would, therefore, request that we utilize 168 tons as the maximum annual waste volume."

I'm still a little confused. 168 tons is a waste mass and with the corresponding density described in the petition, gives an actual waste volume of (168 tons) / (0.69 tons per cubic yard) = 249 cubic yards annually. Yet your final statement insists the volume is 168. I need to know the volume expressed in units of cubic yards per year, and knowing that the density is 0.69 tons/yard and not 1 ton per cubic yard, the tons and cubic yards must be different numbers. Please let me know the requested delisting volume in cubic yards. I'm working out of my home tomorrowfrom 07:30 to 5:00. You can reach me there at (847) 546-2517 or on my

cell at (847) 293-5888. I can also get my e-mail while at home so feel free to respond via e-mail.
Thanks,
Todd D. Ramaly Environmental Scientist RCRA Programs Section U.S. EPA - Region 5 (312) 353-9317

The information contained in this electronic message is privileged and/or confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is neither allowed nor intended. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by calling 800-CTI-TODAY and delete the message. Thank You!
SERVED OCTOBER 9, 2012 

. ,:;~r:;~FiTMENT OF 

U.S. DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION :, :,!~(~;J2/;~)fJ0RTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS '· ·ut\C I OPERl\TIONS 

In The Matter Of: 

LIBERTY 

FOUNDATION, INC 

Respondent 

WASHINGTON, DC 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

zntz ocr -q 2: 25 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0477 

Case No. 2011-GL-03-0070 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF 

DISCOVERY DEADLINE 

On September 24, 2012 an Order Setting Litigation dates and Procedures was 

filed. Among other things, this Order set a deadline of October 12, 2012 for the general . 

discovery exchange deadline. 

On October 2, 2012 the Respondent, Liberty Foundation, Inc. filed a two-page letter, 

in which the FAA and the Respondent jointly requested an extension from October 12, 

2012 to October 31, 2012 to complete the general discovery exchange requests. 

On October 5, 2012 the Respondent contacted the Office of Hearings (OH) legal staff 

to inquire about the status of the parties' joint request. The OH advised the Respondent 

that Judge Sullivan had reviewed the parties' October 2, 2012 joint request, and had 

issued an oral ruling granting their request. A written Order would be filed and mailed on 

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 (after the three-day holiday). 

It Is Hereby Ordered: 

1. October 31, 2012- New Discovery Deadline: Pursuant to the parties' 

agreement, the last date for both parties to exchange or serve all additional general 

discovery requests pursuant to CR 26- CR 36 and 14 C.P.R. §13.220(b) and (e) 

is extended from October 12,2012 to October 31,2012. 

Attachment: Service List 

Page 1 of 1 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl0001 

ONE COPY 

Stuart A. Goldstein, Respondent's Counsel 

Stuart A. Goldstein, P .A. 

9350 South Dixie Highway, 10th Floor 

Miami, FL 33156 

TEL: 305-670-1222 

FAX: 305-670-7065 

· Adrianne yvojcik, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696 

TEL: 847-294-7109 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Departll).ent of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0477 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

·DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,225,250
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  424,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (5,597)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      19,860,321
<DEPRECIATION>                             (8,789,242)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,649,006
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      1,650,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,964,085
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,649,006
<SALES>                                      2,565,028
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,689,138
<CGS>                                        1,158,991
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,950,641
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               653,539
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               126,080
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             142,927
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (302,799)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (302,799)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (302,799)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.2
 
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS
 
 As independent petroleum and natural gas consultants, we hereby consent to the reference of our name in the Form 10K for the year ending December 31, 2005 of PDC 2004A (the “Partnership”). We have no interest of a substantial or material nature in the Partnership or in any affiliate. We have not been employed on a contingent
basis, and we are not connected with the Partnership or any affiliate as a promoter, underwriter, voting trustee, director, officer, employee, or affiliate.
 
 /s/ D. Randall WrightBy:
D. Randall WrightPresident
 
 
 Wright & Company, Inc.
 Brentwood, Tennessee
 July 20, 2009
(LOGO)ERNST & YOUNG
Ernst & Young LLP
1300 Huntington Building
925 Euclid Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1405
Phone: (216) 861-5000
www. ey. com


Report on Management's Assertion on Compliance
with Minimum Servicing Standards Set Forth in the
Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers

Report of Independent Accountants


Board of Directors

National City Mortgage Co.

We have examined  management's  assertion,  included in the accompanying  report
titled Report of Management, that National City Mortgage Co. (NCM) complied with
the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of
America's Uniform Single Attestation  Program for Mortgage Bankers (USAP) during
the year ended December 31, 1999. Management is responsible for NCM's compliance
with  those  requirements.  Our  responsibility  is to  express  an  opinion  on
management's assertions about NCM's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on  a  test  basis,  evidence  about  NCM's  compliance  with  those
requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered  necessary in
the circumstances.  We believe that our examination  provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on NCM's
compliance with specified requirements.

In  our  opinion,   management's   assertion,   that  NCM   complied   with  the
aforementioned  requirements  during the year ended December 31, 1999, is fairly
stated, in all material respects.

This  report  is  intended  solely  for the  information  and  use of the  audit
committee,  management, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Federal National
Mortgage  Association,  Government National Mortgage Association and NCM private
investors and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than
these specified parties.

February 3, 2000

Ernst & Young LLP
Filed 2/12/20 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2020 ND 29

State of North Dakota Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Orlando Joseph Brown, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20190206

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central

Judicial District, the Honorable Lolita G. Hartl Romanick, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Sarah W. Gereszek, Assistant State’s Attorney, Grand Forks, ND, for plaintiff 

and appellee.

Benjamin C. Pulkrabek, Mandan, ND, for defendant and appellant.
1

State v. Brown

No. 20190206

Per Curiam. 

[¶1] Orlando Joseph Brown appealed from a criminal judgment entered after 

a jury found him guilty of aggravated assault and two counts of gross sexual 

imposition. Brown argues the district court erred by issuing a pre-trial order 

allowing the State to introduce at trial evidence of past incidents of domestic 

violence that occurred between Brown and the victim within the three week 

period prior to the incident that led to the above stated charges. We conclude 

the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a pre-trial order 

permitting the State to introduce this prior-act evidence under N.D.R.Ev. 

404(b). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). 

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

 Gerald W. VandeWalle

 Daniel J. Crothers

 Lisa Fair McEvers

 Jerod E. Tufte
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-4870
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VICTOR MANUEL CASTILLO, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 96-4874
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SALVADOR VILLANEUVA, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-96-305) Submitted: May 29, 1997 Decided: June 13, 199723 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Bruce Betts, Columbia, South Carolina; Parks N. Small, Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellants. Kelly Elizabeth Shackelford, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).4 PER CURIAM: Victor M. Castillo and Salvador Villaneuva appeal from theirconvictions and sentences imposed for conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute. We affirm. Appellants' attorneys have filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the issues of whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 when it accepted the Appellants' guilty pleas and whether it properly applied the United States Sentencing Guidelines to the factual findings made at sentencing. Our review of the record reveals that the district court was in compliance with Rule 11 and properly applied the Sentencing Guidelines in its imposition of sentence. Pursuant to Anders , this court has reviewed the record for potential error and has found none. Accordingly, we affirm. This Court requires that counsel inform their clients, in writing, of their right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the clients request that a petitionbe filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this Court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsels' motion must state that a copy thereof was served on their clients. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-5 rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
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-65,645]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 20, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Ultimizers, Inc., Boring, Oregon.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th day of March 2009.

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-8942 Filed 4-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUL 7 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

WAYNE M. PARKER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. MICHAEL A. LANSING, Respondent-Appellee. No. 98-3353 (D.C. 98-CV-3325-RDR) (District of Kansas)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, BALDOCK , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App.P.34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Petitioner Wayne M. Parker is an inmate in the Unit ed States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He has filed a petition for habeas corpus2

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the legal ity of his incarceration. As the district court correctly determined, however, Mr. P arker’s petition reveals that his direct appeal is pending before the United States A rmy Court of Criminal Appeals. See Rec. doc. 1, at 3. “Petitioner must exhaust his m ilitary remedies before filing a civil habeas petition.” Lundy v. Zelez , 908 F.2d 593, 594 (10th Cir. 1990). Therefore, we AFFIRM the district cou rt’s dismissal of Mr. Parker’s petition for habeas corpus without prejudice.

Entered for the Court,

Robert H. Henry Circuit Judge
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2693 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on micro-porous, ultrafine, spherical polyamide powders of polyamide 6; polyamide-12; and polyamide 

6, 12. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. CASEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on micro-porous, 

ultrafine, spherical polyamide powders of polyamide 6; 

polyamide-12; and polyamide 6, 12. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MICRO-POROUS, ULTRAFINE, SPHERICAL POLY4 AMIDE POWDERS OF POLYAMIDE 6; POLY5 AMIDE-12; AND POLYAMIDE 6, 12. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.39.08 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

8 micro-porous, ultrafine, spherical polyamide powders of 

9 polyamide 6; polyamide-12; and polyamide 6, 12) is 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2693 IS

1 amended by striking the date in the effective period col2 umn and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

5 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

6 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
November 13, 2012

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Exemption No. 4298, Docket No. FAA-2003-14245

Ladies/Gentlemen:

In accordance with Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14CFR) § 11.61, the Air Transport 

Association of America, Inc. (ATA) dba “Airlines for America,” on behalf of its member airlines1/

and other similarly situated part 121 certificate holders, petitions for an extension of Exemption No. 

4298M (Docket No. FAA-2003-14245). This exemption is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2013.

Exemption No. 4298M provides relief from §§ 121.311(f) and 121.391(d) of Title 14 CFR and 

permits ATA member airlines and other similarly situated part 121 certificate holders’ required 

flight attendants to be located at the mid-cabin flight attendant station during takeoff and landing on 

Boeing 767 airplanes.

The conditions and circumstances, in regard to public interest and equivalent levels of safety, which 

warranted the original grant of exemption, continue to exist. This exemption and its predecessor, 

Exemption No. 4298, have been in use for almost eighteen years with no known compromise of 

safety.

____________________________________

1

A4AMembers include: Alaska Airlines, Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Atlas Air, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Federal 

Express Corporation, Hawaiian Airlines, JetBlue Airways Corp., Southwest Airlines Co., United 

Continental Holdings, Inc., United Parcel Service Co., US Airways, Inc. Air Canada is an associate 

member.
U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

Docket No. FAA-2003-14245

November 13, 2012

Page Two

The renewal of this exemption is not a controversial issue. ATA believes that there is just cause to 

waive the requirement of public notice of this petition. There is no substantial change to the 

exemption and the renewal of this exemption is not precedent setting, therefore, ATA requests that 

publication in the Federal Register be waived as unnecessary.

A summary of this petition as required by 14 CFR §11.81 is attached. 

If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at (202) 626-4012.

Very truly yours,

AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION

OF AMERICA, INC.

 By: __________/S/________________ 

Paul W. Railsback

Director - Operations

1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Suite 1100

Washington, D.C. 20004-1707 

(202) 626-4012

prailsback@airlines.org

Attachment
U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

Docket No. FAA-2003-14245

November 13, 2012

Attachment

SUMMARY OF ATA PETITION

The Air Transport Association, Inc., on behalf of its member airlines and other similarly 

situated Part 121 operators, petitions for an extension of Exemption No. 4298 

Exemption No. 4298 provides relief from 14CFR §§ 121.391(d) and 121.311(f) and 

permits required flight attendant(s) to be located at the mid-cabin flight attendant station 

during takeoff and landing on Boeing 767 aircraft.
### 14.3 LIST OF ApPENDICES 

### AppendixA AppendixB
AppendixC
AppendixD AppendixE AppendixF Appendix G
AppendixH Appendix I AppendixJ AppendixK AppendixL AppendixM AppendixN Appendix 0 AppendixP AppendixQ AppendixR
AppendixS
Appendix T
Appendix U Appendix V Appendix W AppendixX Regional Haze Program Requirements , 40 CFR 51.30S December 6, 2007 and June 25 , 2009 Public Hearing Notices and Certifications ofPublication ofthe Notice Comments and Responses to the Plan and 2009 Revision to the Plan MACe Adoption Certifications Central Class I Areas Consultation Plan CENRAP Technical Support Document Revised IMPROVE Algorithm for Estimating Light Extinction from Particle Speciation Data 2002 and

.201S Emissions Inventory BART-Eligible Emission Point Information BART Survey and Supplemental Information CALPUFFICALPOST Modeling Files Refined Meteorological and Land Use Data Sources Screen-Modeling Analyses Holcim-Clarksville BART Analysis

- April 24, 200S Holcim-Clarksville BART Analysis

- June 12, 200S Holcim-Clarksville BAR T Analysis

- july 24, 200S Holcim-Clarksville SO! Control Cost Evaluation Holcim-Clarksville BART Draft Consent Agreement

- August IS,200S Holcim-Clarksville BART Final Consent Agreement

- April 19,2009 Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program Consultation Meeting Minutes Applicable State Rules CENRAP Regional Haze Control Strategy Analysis Plan Missouri Smoke Management Plan

108
Document

Exhibit 10.26

Directors’ Compensation Summary Sheet - 2022
									
		Board Members	Chairman of the Board
	Annual Retainer	115,000 		215,000 	
			
	Committee Chairs		
	Audit Committee	27,500 		
	Human Capital & Compensation Committee	22,500 		
	Investment Committee	22,500 		
	Nominating & Governance Committee	22,500 		
	Risk Committee	22,500 		
	Transaction Review Subgroup Committee  Retainer	10,000 		
	Cyber & Technology Subgroup Committee Retainer	10,000 		
			
	Stock Grants 1 2	155,000 		280,000 	
			
	1 Number of shares issued based upon FMV on date of grant. 
	2 Chairman of the Board Stock Grant will increase to $285,000 in 2023