alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FEATHER RIVER AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

IN RE:

RESOLUTION AMENDING

REGULATION X RULE 10.1 – NEW 

SOURCE REVIEW

RESOLUTION NO 2009-03

WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code sections 40000, 40001, 40702, 40716, 

40910, and 42300 authorize the Feather River Air Quality Management District to adopt, amend 

or repeal rules and regulations; and

WHEREAS, the District Board has determined that a need exists to amend Regulation 

X, Rule 10.1 in order to be approved into the State Implementation Plan and to address 

comments from the California Air Recourses Board as noted in their program evaluation of the 

District; and

WHEREAS, the District Board has determined that a need exists to amend Regulation 

X, Rule 10.1 in order to separate and distinguish state and federal requirements; and

WHEREAS, there is no indication at this time that Regulation X, Rule 10.1 is written in 

such a manner that the persons affected by it could not easily understand it; and

WHEREAS, the proposed Regulation X, Rule 10.1 is in harmony with, and not in 

conflict with or contradictory to, existing statutes, court decisions, or State or federal regulations

(Health and Safety Code Section 40727(b)(4)); and

WHEREAS, the proposed Regulation X, Rule 10.1 duplicates state laws or regulations 

concerning the attainment or maintenance of state and federal air quality standards and the 

duplicative requirements are necessary in order to execute the powers and duties imposed upon 

the District (Health and Safety Code Section 40727(b)(5)); and

WHEREAS, the District Board recognizes that Regulation X, Rule 10.1 implements and 

makes specific federal requirements under Title I of the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990 and 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 51 and the state requirement for a no net increase 

program (Health and Safety Code Section 40727(b)(6)); and

WHEREAS, the District Board has made the required findings of authority, necessity, 

clarity, consistency, non-duplication, and reference;

WHEREAS, this Resolution, and the Regulation set forth herein, was adopted after 

proceedings held in accordance with provisions of chapters 6 and 6.5 of part 3 of division 26 of 

the California Health and Safety Code (commencing with section 40700), and a duly noticed 

public hearing was held on October 5, 2009 to consider the amending of Regulation X, Rule 

10.1 – New Source Review; and
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - science_science(1)
              - products_publications(13)
              - products_web_tools(1)
              - multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(1)
              - multimedia_video(3)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149195(2)

## By Location

              - alabama(2)
              - arizona(2)
              - california(1)
              - delaware(1)
              - district of columbia(1)
              - florida(4)
              - hawaii(5)
              - maryland(2)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - mississippi(2)
              - north carolina(2)
              - (-)puerto rico(2)
              - south dakota(4)
              - washington(3)
              - wisconsin(2)
              - wyoming(3)

## By Year

Featured Films and Shorts        August 30, 2021        Reducing Flood Risks by Restoring Coral Reefs

Featured Films and Shorts        August 30, 2021        Reducing Flood Risks by Restoring Coral Reefs (AD)
X-CHEM, LLC, and Kyle C. Buck v. Scott E. MESSER

1160033

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       4,993,906
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       8,147,450
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                     118,649,890
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                       118,339,858
<LOANS>                                    344,254,594
<ALLOWANCE>                                  3,121,703
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             494,456,226
<DEPOSITS>                                 341,643,669
<SHORT-TERM>                                57,363,368
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          3,336,102
<LONG-TERM>                                 57,305,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,409,678
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,398,409
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             494,456,226
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             19,958,265
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            5,842,441
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                41,641
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            25,842,347
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          10,857,603
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          15,606,039
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       10,236,308
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  381,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              20,123
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              8,839,185
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,289,802
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,656,052
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.47
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.02
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,225,785
<LOANS-PAST>                                 5,532,319
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             3,172,375
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  494,154
<RECOVERIES>                                    62,482
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            3,121,703
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         3,121,703
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6764** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
JOHNEY FREEMAN , Defendant

- Appellant

.

**No. 15**  **- 6977** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
JOHNEY FREEMAN , Defendant

- Appellant.

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

. Rebecca Beach Smith , Chief District Judge. ( 2:88

- cr - 00076

- AWA

- 2 )

Submitted : August 20, 2015 Decided: August 25, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.2 Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

John ey Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Westley Haynie, Assistant United States Attorney, V. Kathleen Dougherty, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CUR IAM: Johney Freeman appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012), ruling on his two motions to reconsider, and denying his motion to unseal documents. We have reviewed the

recor d and find no reversible error. United States v. Freeman , No. 2:88

- cr - 00076

- AWA

- 2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 22, 2015; May 22, 2015 ; June 5, 2015; June 8, 2015 ) ; see United States v. Mann , 709 F.3d
301, 304

- 05 (4th Cir. 2013) ( reviewing the disposition of a

§ 3582(c)(2) motion for an abuse of discretion ) ; United States v. Goodwyn , 596 F.3d 233, 235

- 36 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding that
the district court does not have authority to reconsider a prior
order for a § 3582 (c)(2) motion). Accordingly, we affirm the
dist rict court’s denial of relief. We dispense 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
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 Quarterly Report of Basset Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the Report), I, Cosmo Palmieri, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  March 11,2008 /s/Cosmo Palmieri     President
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Australia

Filters

              - science_education(2)
              - science_science(12)
              - products_data(16)
              - products_maps(2)
              - products_publications(349)
              - products_web_tools(1)
              - multimedia_audio(16)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(14)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(2)
              - multimedia_before_after(4)
              - multimedia_image(115)
              - multimedia_image-141770(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(92)
              - multimedia_image-141775(1)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_image-204460(20)
              - multimedia_video(47)
              - multimedia_video-149194(27)
              - multimedia_video-149195(16)
              - multimedia_video-149198(2)
              - documents_file(5)
              - (-)documents_file-149220(2)
              - documents_file-149224(3)
              - news_news-149246(1)
              - news_news-149248(3)
              - news_news-149249(3)
              - news_news-149250(2)
              - news_newsletters(1)
              - news_other_news(8)
              - other_basic-42(3)

## By Location

## By Year

Supporting material        July 6, 2018        Australia Pacific Land Cover Characteristics Data Base Readme Version2

Supporting material        June 29, 2018        Australia/Pacific Land Cover Characteristics Data Base Version 2.0
Al L. BURGESS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1178

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[July 26, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4 ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960



# 11AR 1 22013

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Additional informationrelated to Federal Register DocumentEPA-R04-0AR-2012- 0448; Approval and Promulgation oflmplementationPlans; Georgia; Control Techniques Guidelines and Reasonably Available Control Technology correcting amendments

FROM:

TO: Jane Stone Spann 

# 6.1\.__ Regulatory

## Develo;m~nt Section

File and Docket EPA-R04-0AR-2012-0448

Thepurpose ofthis memorandum is to provide informationthat is notcritical to the action taken inFederal Register DocumentEPA-R04-0AR-2012-0448 butthatprovides clarity related to negative declarations for Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) and Alternative Control Techniques (ACT).

The EPA notes that CTGare used to presumptively define volatile organic compounds (VOC) reasonably available control technology (RACT) while ACT describe available control technologies and theirrespective cost effectiveness. Unlike CTG, ACT do not define presumptive RACT levels, and as such, do not satisfY applicable RACT requirements. Georgia included a number ofACT negative declarations with its October 21, 2009, SIP submittal. Because these ACTnegative determinations were unnecessary to satisfY Georgia's RACT obligations, the EPA did not explicitlyreference these ACTnegative declarations in the September28, 2012, final action. No correction is necessary withrespect to the ACT, however, to avoid any confusion, the EPA simply notes that Georgiahas made negative declarations for the following ACT categories: ACT Document- Organic Waste Process Vents, Control ofVOC Emissions from Industrial WastewaterCTG (draft), Bakery Ovens ACT, Control ofVOC Emissions from the Application ofAgricultural Pesticides, NOx Emissions from Process Heaters, ACT Document-Volatile Organic Liquid Storage in Floating and Fixed RoofTanks, Control ofVOC Emissions from BatchProcesses ACT, ACT Document-Industrial Cleaning Solvents, ACT Document-Surface Coating ofAutomotive/Transportation and Business Machine Plastic Parts, NOx Emissions from Cement Manufacturing, ACT Document -Surface Coating Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Facilities, Industrial WastewaterACT, Reduction of VOC Emissions from Automobile Refinishing, ACT Document-Ethylene Oxide Sterilization/Fumigation Operations, and ACT Document-Halagenated Solvent Cleaners.

Internet Address (URL) • http//www epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Min1mum 30% Postconsumer)
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 Health and Human Services

###### Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

### Correction

In notice document E9-8040 beginning on page 16408 in the issue of Friday, April 10, 2009, make the following corrections:

1. On page 16409, in the first column, in the fifth line from the top, “indMduals” should read “individuals”.

                    2. On the same page, in the                     **ADDRESSES**                     section, in the eighth and ninth lines, “                    *http://dreamless.keenspot.com/​comic.rss*                    ” should read “                    *uspstaskforce@ahrq.hhs.gov*                    ”.                

                    3. On the same page, in the                     **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                     section, in the second line, “                    *uspstaskforce@ahrg.hhs.gov*                    ” should read “                    *uspstaskforce@ahrq.hhs.gov*                    ”.                

                    4. On the same page, in the last full paragraph, in the second line from the bottom, “                    *http://preventiveservices.ahrg.gov*                    ” should read “                    *http://preventiveservices.ahrq.gov*                    ”.                 

[FR Doc. Z9-8040 Filed 4-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001098332
<NAME>                        UNITED VENTURES GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                                     205
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           205
<PP&E>                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             205
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      0
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                   300
<OTHER-SE>                                 (95)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               205
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           0
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                               0
<EPS-BASIC>                                0
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0




</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

537 

CA 12-01545 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

SOPHIA MELSKI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF PATRICK 

MELSKI, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FITZPATRICK & WELLER, INC., 

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

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

FITZPATRICK & WELLER, INC., THIRD-PARTY 

PLAINTIFF,

V

 

NICHOLSON & HALL CORP., 

THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

COLLINS & COLLINS ATTORNEYS, LLC, BUFFALO (CHARLES H. COBB OF COUNSEL),

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

STOCKTON, BARKER & MEAD, LLP, TROY (ROBERT S. STOCKTON OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP, BUFFALO (BRIAN R. BIGGIE OF COUNSEL), FOR

THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Kevin M.

Dillon, J.), entered May 25, 2012. The order granted the motions of

defendant and third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the

amended complaint. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously

affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff’s decedent fell from a ladder and was injured

while performing work on a boiler at a hardwood lumber plant operated by

defendant. Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for

violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) and 241 (6), as well as for

common-law negligence, and Supreme Court granted the motions of defendant

and third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the amended

complaint. Plaintiff contends on appeal that the court erred in granting

those parts of the motions with respect to the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and

241 (6) claims inasmuch as decedent was engaged in a protected activity

at the time he was injured. We reject that contention. With respect to
-2- 537 

CA 12-01545 

section 240 (1), defendant and third-party defendant met their initial

burden of establishing that decedent was not performing one of the

protected activities enumerated in the statute but, rather, was involved

in routine maintenance in a non-construction, non-renovation context (see

Smith v Shell Oil Co., 85 NY2d 1000, 1002; Noah v IBC Acquisition Corp.,

262 AD2d 1037, 1037, lv denied 93 NY2d 1042). Specifically, defendant

and third-party defendant established that decedent’s work involved

replacing components that required replacement in the course of normal

wear and tear, and thus that work did not involve repairing or any of the

other activities enumerated in section 240 (1) (see Esposito v New York

City Indus. Dev. Agency, 1 NY3d 526, 528). With respect to section 241

(6), defendant and third-party defendant met their burden of establishing

that decedent did not perform his work in the context of construction,

demolition or excavation (see Nagel v D & R Realty Corp., 99 NY2d 98,

102-103). Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect

to either statute (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d

557, 562).

Entered: June 7, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
y



### MANDATE



## Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

NO. 01

- 13

- 00 695

- CV

KIPP, INC. , Appellant

V.

KIMBERLY WHITEHEAD , Appellee

Appeal from the 2 34 th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 20 11

- 70657 ).

TO THE 2 34 TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court , on the 1 2 th day of August 2014 , the case upon appeal to revise or

to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by

the trial court on July 26 , 2013 . After submitting the case on

the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the

parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment co ntains

no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial

court’s judgment.

The Court orders that the appellant, KIPP, Inc. , pay all

appellate costs.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below

for observance.Judgment rendered August 1 2

, 2014.

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley , and Sharp

. Opinion delivered by Justice Jennings.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and exec uted.

April 17, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT