alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{In Archive} RE: McElmo Creek Unit

Dwight Mallory to: Shaheerah Kelly, Patrick Flynn 05/16/2007 12:13 PM

Cc: wilsonlaughter

From: "Dwight Mallory" <dmallory@rnrc.net>

To: Shaheerah Kelly/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, "Patrick Flynn" <pflynn@rnrc.net>, 

Cc: <wilsonlaughter@navajo.org>

Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive.

The average gas throughput for the TEG dehy unit is 

7,831,000 scf/day.

The average for the entire MCU compressor station is 

11,856,000 scf/day.

Dwight Mallory

Environmental, Health & Safety Coordinator

Resolute Natural Resources Company

1675 Broadway, Suite 1950

Denver, CO 80202

Phone (303) 573-4886 X 1165

Fax (303) 623-3628

THIS COMMUNICATION AND ANY ATTACHMENTS ARE 

CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY

INFORMATION INTENDED FOR THE ADDRESSED PARTY ONLY, 

AND MAY BE

PRIVILEGED UNDER LAW. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED 

RECIPIENT YOU ARE

HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY FURTHER REVIEW OR 

DISSEMINATION OF THIS MESSAGE

AND ANY ATTACHMENTS IS PROHIBITED BY LAW . IN SUCH 

EVENT YOU SHOULD

DELETE THIS COMMUNICATION AND ALL ATTACHMENTS AND 

DESTROY ANY PRINTED

COPIES. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER OF ANY ERRONEOUS 

TRANSMISSION OF THIS

EMAIL. THANK YOU.

-----Original Message-----

From: Kelly.Shaheerah@epamail.epa.gov

[mailto:Kelly.Shaheerah@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 4:42 PM

To: Patrick Flynn

Cc: Dwight Mallory; wilsonlaughter@navajo.org

Subject: RE: McElmo Creek Unit

Pat, can you let me know when you think Resolute 

would have responses to

the following questions I sent to you earlier. 

Thanks.

1. What is the actual average natural gas flowrate in 

(scf/day) to the

TEG dehydration unit?
2. If #1 is different for the entire gas compression

plant, what is the

plant-wide actual average natural gas throughput in 

scf/day?

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

Shaheerah Kelly

U S EPA Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415-947-4156

Fax: 415-947-3579

 

 "Patrick Flynn" 

 <pflynn@rnrc.net 

 > 

To 

 Shaheerah 

Kelly/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, 

 05/01/2007 04:14 "Dwight 

Mallory" 

 PM 

<dmallory@rnrc.net> 

 

cc 

 

<wilsonlaughter@navajo.org> 

 

Subject 

 RE: McElmo 

Creek Unit 

 

We have forwarded your questions on to our Operations 

folks and hope to

be able to respond shortly.

Thanks - Pat

Sent by GoodLink (www.good.com)

 -----Original Message-----

From: Kelly.Shaheerah@epamail.epa.gov [

mailto:Kelly.Shaheerah@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 03:58 PM Mountain 

Standard Time

To: Patrick Flynn; Dwight Mallory

Cc: wilsonlaughter@navajo.org
Subject: McElmo Creek Unit

Hi. I have a couple more questions regarding the gas 

compression plant.

1. What is the actual average natural gas flowrate in 

(scf/day) to the

TEG dehydration unit?

2. If #1 is different for the entire gas compression 

plant, what is the

plant-wide actual average natural gas throughput in 

scf/day?

Please let me know.

Thanks.

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

Shaheerah Kelly

U S EPA Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415-947-4156

Fax: 415-947-3579
Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 472-19 Filed 10/22/20 Page 1 of 1
Michael James STERLACE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0752

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
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

In connection with the Annual Report of E and S Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending May 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"). I, Edward A. Barth,
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer and Director of the
company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15
          (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                             By: /s/ Edward A. Barth
                                                ------------------------------
                                                Edward A. Barth

Dated: August 24 , 2004
      -----------------
EXHIBIT
32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER




In
connection with the Amendment No. 1 to quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Genius
Products, Inc. (the “Registrant”) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Edward
J. Byrnes, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, do hereby certify as of
the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of
the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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 Registrant at the dates
and for the  periods indicated.





This
Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.







Dated: March
      26, 2009
            By:
            /s/ Edward J.
      ByrnesEdward
      J. Byrnes
              Chief
      Financial Officer
              (Principal
      Financial Officer)
Vernice HARRIS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Thomas M. KNIGHT, Sheriff, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2419

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Incorporation by Reference

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837

January 28, 2010

The contents of the following dockets are hereby incorporated by reference into and considered 

to be included in, contained in, and to have been placed in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837 

(Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program and Minimum Competency

Requirements for Air Emission Testing):

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0132 (Revisions to the Continuous Emissions Monitoring Rule for the 

Acid Rain Program, NOx Budget Trading Program, Clean Air Interstate Rule, and the Clean Air 

Mercury Rule); and 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0800 (Stay of the Effectiveness of Requirements for Air Emission Testing 

Bodies)

Accessing dockets:

Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for 

the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation 

Docket is (202) 566-1742).
STATE EX REL. Henry Earl CUNNINGHAM v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2017-KH-0719

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 14, 2018

Denied.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - science_faqs(4)
              - science_science(189)
              - products_data(130)
              - products_maps(16)
              - products_publications(2007)
              - products_software(7)
              - products_web_tools(8)
              - multimedia_audio(82)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(78)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(4)
              - multimedia_before_after(5)
              - multimedia_image(196)
              - multimedia_image-141769(1)
              - multimedia_image-141770(4)
              - multimedia_image-141771(145)
              - multimedia_image-141772(4)
              - multimedia_image-141774(2)
              - multimedia_image-141775(22)
              - multimedia_image-141776(16)
              - multimedia_image-204460(2)
              - multimedia_slideshow(2)
              - multimedia_video(229)
              - multimedia_video-149194(87)
              - multimedia_video-149195(54)
              - multimedia_video-149196(16)
              - multimedia_video-149197(15)
              - multimedia_video-149198(13)
              - multimedia_video-149225(2)
              - documents_file(10)
              - documents_file-149204(1)
              - (-)documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149214(4)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - documents_file-149222(1)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - news_news-149246(2)
              - news_news-149248(5)
              - news_news-149249(2)
              - news_news-149250(7)
              - news_newsletters(2)
              - news_other_news(36)
              - (-)connect_staff_profiles(23)
              - other_basic-37(3)
              - other_basic-42(16)

## By Location

              - arizona(2)
              - california(1)
              - connecticut(1)
              - maine(1)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - mississippi(1)
              - new mexico(1)
              - new york(1)
              - oregon(1)
              - wisconsin(1)

## By Year

              - 2024(16)
              - 2023(5)
              - 2022(2)

staff profileKaj Williams, Ph.D.

staff profileSarah Y. Murphy, Ph.D.

staff profileJustin R. Nichols, Ph.D.

staff profileBryan A. Killingsworth, Ph.D.

staff profileRyan McCammon

staff profileRichard L Reynolds

staff profileBrian T. Lamb, Ph.D.

staff profilePatrick Wurster

staff profileJay Alder

staff profileJohn Warner, PhD

staff profileMartha A Scholl

staff profileTimothy Neal Titus, Ph.D.

staff profileJason A. Addison, Ph.D.

staff profileMarith Reheis

staff profileAmanda Garcia

staff profileThomas G Huntington, Ph.D.

staff profileAaron M. Jubb, Ph.D.

staff profileRoger Patrick Denlinger, Ph.D.

staff profileSydney S Foks

staff profileKimberly Casey, Ph.D.

Policy and Directives        November 14, 2019        Final PEIs with Appendicies

staff profileBarry P Baldigo

staff profileKarl B Haase, Ph.D.

staff profileDavid P Krabbenhoft
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Time-domain electromagnetic surveys at Fort Irwin, San Bernardino County, California, 2010–12      

      January 1, 2014    

View Report

Between 2010 and 2012, a total of 79 time-domain electromagnetic (TEM) soundings were collected in 12 groundwater basins in the U.S. Army Fort Irwin National Training Center (NTC) study area to help improve the understanding of the hydrogeology of the NTC. The TEM data are discussed in this chapter in the context of geologic observations of the study area, the details of which are provided in the other chapters of this volume. Selection of locations for TEM soundings in unexplored basins was guided by gravity data that estimated depth to pre-Tertiary basement complex of crystalline rock and alluvial thickness. Some TEM data were collected near boreholes with geophysical logs. The TEM response at locations near boreholes was used to evaluate sounding data for areas without boreholes. TEM models also were used to guide site selection of subsequent boreholes drilled as part of this study. Following borehole completion, geophysical logs were used to ground-truth and reinterpret previously collected TEM data. This iterative process was used to site subsequent TEM soundings and borehole locations as the study progressed. Although each groundwater subbasin within the NTC boundaries was explored using the TEM method, collection of TEM data was focused in those basins identified as best suited for development of water resources. At the NTC, TEM estimates of some lithologic thicknesses and electrical properties in the unsaturated zone are in good accordance with borehole data; however, water-table elevations were not easily identifiable from TEM data.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### David C Buesch

##### Research Geologist

Geology, Minerals, Energy, and Geophysics Science Center

dbuesch@usgs.gov

650-439-2634

#### Paul A Bedrosian

##### Research Geophysicist

Geology, Geophysics, and Geochemistry Science Center

pbedrosian@usgs.gov

303-236-4834

## Related Content

#### David C Buesch

##### Research Geologist

Geology, Minerals, Energy, and Geophysics Science Center

dbuesch@usgs.gov

650-439-2634

#### Paul A Bedrosian

##### Research Geophysicist

Geology, Geophysics, and Geochemistry Science Center

pbedrosian@usgs.gov

303-236-4834

### Contact

####               Geology, Minerals, Energy, and Geophysics Science Center          

Building 19, 350 N. Akron Rd.P.O. Box 158Moffett Field, CA94035United States

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - california

View All **
STATE EX REL. Robbreion GREEN v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 17-KH-0734

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

August 3, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Relator also fails to show the state withheld material exculpatory evidence in violation of *Brady v. Maryland* , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). In addition, relator's confrontation clause and insufficient evidence claims are repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4. As to the remaining claim, relator fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
Tagged Opinion 

Do not publish 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

IN RE: 

MARIA SANZ, 

Debtor. 

_________________________________/

CASE NO.: 21-16807-LMI 

Chapter 7 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEBTOR’S 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES 

This matter came before the Court on September 27, 2021 on DEBTOR’S 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES AGAINST GFT 

RECOVERY, LLC, FOR THE WILLFUL VIOLATION OF 11 U.S.C. § 362 (ECF 

#17)(the “Sanctions Motion”). The Court having considered the argument of 

counsel, subsequent written submissions and applicable law, finds that GFT 

Laurel M. Isicoff 

Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge ___________________________________________________________________________

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on November 4, 2021.

Case 21-16807-LMI Doc 25 Filed 11/05/21 Page 1 of 3
Case No.: 21-16807-LMI 

2 

RECOVERY, LLC (“GFT”) did not violate the automatic stay and therefore 

should not be sanctioned.1

The Debtor alleges that, pre-petition, GFT wrongfully garnished a bank 

account belonging to the Debtor’s employer, but which bank account includes 

the Debtor as an authorized signator (the “Bank Account”). The Sanctions 

Motion alleges that GFT refused to release the garnished Bank Account after 

the Debtor filed her bankruptcy case and that that refusal, if the Bank Account 

is property of the Debtor or property of the estate, is a violation of the 

automatic stay.2 At the hearing counsel for GFT advised that, while GFT has 

not moved to dissolve the garnishment, GFT has not taken any further action 

with respect to the Bank Account. 

If the Bank Account is not the Debtor’s property, then the automatic stay 

has not been violated by GFT’s failure to request that the garnishment be 

dissolved. If the Bank Account is the Debtor’s property, because GFT did not 

take any further action with respect to the Bank Account, that failure to act is 

not a violation of the automatic stay. See In re Giles, 271 B.R. 903 (Bankr. 

M.D. Fla. 2002); accord Chicago v. Fulton, 141 S.Ct. 585 (2021).

# # # 

Copies furnished to: 

Noam Cohen, Esq. 

Michael Marcer, Esq. 

1 Nothing in this Order is intended to opine as to the appropriateness of GFT’s position that the 

bank account in question has been properly garnished. That is a matter for the state court to 

consider. 

2 The Court notes that the Debtor received her discharge while this matter was pending before 

the Court. Nothing in this order is intended to address whether and to what extent the 

discharge injunction of 11 U.S.C. §524 impacts the continued garnishment of the funds. 

Case 21-16807-LMI Doc 25 Filed 11/05/21 Page 2 of 3
Case No.: 21-16807-LMI 

3 

Movant is directed to serve a copy of this Order on interested parties who do not receive 

service by CM/ECF, and file a proof of such service within two (2) business days from entry of 

the Order. 

Case 21-16807-LMI Doc 25 Filed 11/05/21 Page 3 of 3
STATE EX REL. Malcolm SCOTT v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-0813

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

August 3, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF LAFAYETTE**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As to his remaining claim, relator fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

Relator has now fully litigated an application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
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 Transportation

######  Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

          - 49 CFR Parts 172 and 174
          - [RSPA Docket No. 2006-26322 (HM-206F)]
          - RIN 2137-AE21

### Correction

In rule document E9-24799 beginning on page 53413 in the issue of Monday, October 19, 2009, make the following correction:

                    On page 53413, in the third column, under the                     **DATES**                     section, in the second line, “November 18, 2009” should read “October 1, 2010”.                 

[FR Doc. Z9-24799 Filed 10-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Cedric R. HUTCHINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4787

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

August 7, 2018

Cedric R. Hutchinson, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Frank X. Moehrle, Jr. and Amanda Stokes, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Bilbrey, J.

Cedric R. Hutchinson challenges the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. By this petition, Hutchinson challenged his conviction for aggravated battery, a conviction obtained in Hillsborough County. The circuit court in Calhoun County dismissed the petition as "unauthorized." While the premise of Hutchinson's petition was incorrect - that a motor vehicle cannot be a deadly weapon under the aggravated battery statute* - the circuit *1328court should have transferred the petition to Hillsborough County in the Thirteenth Circuit for its consideration of the petition. *See**Torres v. State* , 208 So.3d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) ; *Baker v. State* , 164 So.3d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).

In *Torres* and *Baker* , the petitioner challenged the sufficiency of the charging document. These cases are therefore distinguishable from the case on which the trial court relied, *Gill v. Jones* , 204 So.3d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), which held that a habeas petition was unauthorized and hence subject to dismissal because the petitioner pursued post-conviction relief in the wrong court). *See also**James v. Jones* , 244 So.3d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (holding dismissal of habeas petition appropriate when petitioner is seeking post-conviction relief available under rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure ).

Accordingly, the order of dismissal is vacated, and the cause is remanded to the circuit court with the instruction that the petition be transferred to the circuit court for Hillsborough County.

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Osterhaus, J., concur.

*

*See**Clark v. State* , 783 So.2d 967 (Fla. 2001) ; *V.A. v. State* , 819 So.2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
P.1 

OAR Box 1147 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

145) IV-E-18 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:55 PM Sheet 145 of 242 
P.2 

•J^ 0 8 * * , 

USSy 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

JAN 2 0 1988 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: 

FROM: 

TO: 

Telephone Conversation with Mr. Hugh Shannon and Mr. 

George Musser of Exxon 

John F. Anderson, Senior Project Mana 

Standards Development and Support Bra 

Docket A-87-11 

WtpLJ^-

During the week of January 4, 1988 I had phone 

conversations with Mr. Hugh Shannon and Mr. George Musser of 

Exxon concerning test data Exxon was collecting on emissions 

from underground gasoline storage tanks and on a new onboard 

equipped car which Exxon has proposed. Exxon will be 

submitting some of its underground tank test data in advance of 

completing its written report in order to allow EPA quicker 

access to the results. Exxon has also scheduled a meeting for 

January 25, 1988 at which time it will make a presentation to 

EPA about its onboard equipped car.