alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### **CHAPTER 62—AFRICAN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION**

Sec.
4201.
Statement of purpose.
4202.
Findings.
4203.
Statement of policy.

#### SUBCHAPTER I—AFRICAN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE

4211.
Provision of assistance.
4212.
Acceptance and use of donations.
4213.
Omitted.
4214.
Advisory group.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—MORATORIA AND PROHIBITED ACTS

4221.
Review of African elephant conservation programs.
4222.
Moratoria.
4223.
Prohibited acts.
4224.
Penalties and enforcement.
4225.
Rewards.

#### SUBCHAPTER III—MISCELLANEOUS

4241.
Relationship to Endangered Species Act of 1973.
4242.
Certification under Pelly amendment.
4243.
Repealed.
4244.
Definitions.
4245.
Authorization of appropriations.
4246.
Multinational Species Conservation Fund.
fumigant alternatives analysis

Randy Segawa to: Nancy Levin, Andrew Steckel 08/03/2011 03:18 PM

Cc:

Karen Magliano, Patricia Velasco , Sylvia Zulawnick, John 

Sanders , Polly Frenkel, Kerry Drake

Follow Up: Normal Priority. 

History: This message has been forwarded.

4 attachments

2332 - Steckel.pdf Fumigant VOC Alternatives Analysis_2.pdfFumigant VOC Alternatives Analysis_2_trk_chng.pdf

attachment_1b.pdf

Andy, Nancy

The revised alternatives analysis for the Department of Pesticide Regulation's 

(DPR's) fumigant volatile organic compound (VOC) regulations is attached. The 

previous analysis addressed the first three sets of fumigant VOC regulations. 

This revision includes the alternatives analysis for all five sets of 

pesticide VOC regulations. Both a clean version and a track changes version 

are attached. The analysis includes a new attachment, Attachment 1b. 

Attachment 1 in the previous alternatives analysis now becomes Attachment 1a. 

There are no changes from the preview of these documents I sent last week. 

Hardcopy is in the mail. DPR sent the last two sets of VOC regulations to the 

Air Resources Board on July 20. They should submit these regulations to you 

shortly. Contact me if you have any questions, but I will be out of the office 

tomorrow and Friday.

Randy

Randy Segawa

Environmental Program Manager

Air Program

Department of Pesticide Regulation

PO Box 4015

Sacramento, CA 95812-4015

916-324-4137

rsegawa@cdpr.ca.gov
§ 82.1 Court subpoenas or requests. ( a ) A subpoena or request from a court for records of the Government Accountability Office should be directed to the Comptroller General of the United States and served upon the Records Management and Services Officer, Office of Information Systems and Services.
( b ) In honoring a court subpoena or request original records may be presented for examination but must not be presented as evidence or otherwise used in any manner by reason of which they may lose their identity as official records of the Government Accountability Office. They must not be marked or altered, or their value as evidence impaired, destroyed, or otherwise affected. In lieu of the original records, certified copies will be presented for evidentiary purposes since they are admitted in evidence equally with the originals (31 U.S.C. 704).
[33 FR 358, Jan. 10, 1968, as amended at 45 FR 84955, Dec. 24, 1980; 47 FR 56980, Dec. 22, 1982]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-50894

Summary Calendar

SAN ANTONIO GARMENT FINISHERS, INC.;

NORA SIERRA,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS

LEVI STRAUSS & CO.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(SA-97-CV-1452-HG)

February 22, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

For a period of five years from 1992 through 1997, San Antonio

Garment Finishers, Inc. (hereinafter "SAGF") provided laundry

finishing services to Levi Strauss & Co. (hereinafter "LS&Co.") in

connection with the m anufacture of various garment products by

LS&Co. In each of these years, LS&Co. and SA GF entered into a

finishing process agreement that governed their relationship. Each2

of these agreements provided that either party could terminate the

relationship on 30 days written notice. In April 1997, LS&Co.

notified SAGF that due to excess capacit y and changing market

conditions, LS&Co. had to cut back significantly on the use of

finishing contractors including SAGF. Despite being required to

give only 30 days’ notice, LS&Co. gave SAGF six months’ notice of

its plan to terminate the parties’ relationship. After termination

of the agreement, SAGF filed this lawsuit in Texas State Court on

October 31, 1997, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of

fiduciary duty, promissory estoppel, breach of duty of good faith

and fair dealing, constructive fraud, and fraud and negligent

misrepresentation. The case was removed to the United States

District Court on December 5, 1997, on the grounds of diversity of

citizenship. After extensive discovery, LS&Co. filed a motion for

summary judgment in July 1998. While the summary judgment motion

was pending, SAGF filed two motions to amend its complaint, seeking

to add Nora Sierra as a plaintiff and to withdraw all of SAGF’s

claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and negligent

misrepresentation. Shortly thereafter, SAGF filed an opposition to

LS&Co.’s summary judgment motion and the district court granted the

motion seeking leave to amend the original petition. Subsequently,

the district court entered an order granting LS&Co.’s motion for

summary judgment as to all claims of the parties remaining in the

case. SAGF and Nora Sierra timely appealed.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs and the record excerpts

and relevant portions of the record itself. For the reasons stated3 g:\opin\98-50894.opn by the district court in its Order filed August 17, 1998, we AFFIRM

the grant of summary judgment in favor of LS&Co.

AFFIRMED.
### **CHAPTER 49—FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION**

Sec.
2901.
Congressional findings and declaration of purpose.
2902.
Definitions.
2903.
Conservation plans.
2904.
Approval of conservation plans and certain nongame fish and wildlife conservation actions.
2905.
Reimbursement of State cost for developing, revising, and implementing conservation plans and implementing certain nongame fish and wildlife conservation actions.
2906.
Terms and conditions of reimbursement.
2907.
Allocation of funds for administration and reimbursement of States.
2908.
Other Federal assistance and actions.
2909.
Disclaimers.
2910.
Authorization of appropriations.
2911.
Study on most equitable and effective mechanism for funding State conservation plans; report to Congressional committees.
2912.
Federal conservation of migratory nongame birds.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7375

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BRUNO SAUCEDO-OLVERA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,

District Judge. (1:03-cr-00097-2; 1:06-cv-00219)

Submitted: October 23, 2006 Decided: November 14, 2006

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruno Saucedo-Olvera, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Bruno Saucedo-Olvera seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Saucedo-Olvera

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2010209EN.01004901.xml

| 31.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/49

---

Action brought on 26 May 2010 — Italy v Commission and EPSO

(Case T-248/10)

()

2010/C 209/73

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission and European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/177/10 — Administrators (AD 5) published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 16 March 2010 (OJ 2010 C 64A); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/177/10 — Administrators (AD 5) published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 16 March 2010 (OJ 2010 C 64A);

Official Journal of the European Union

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Case T-218/09 Italy v Commission. (1)

Italy

Commission

1

---

(1)  OJ C 180 of 1.8.09, p. 59.

1

---
# C_2011139EN.01001401.xml

| 7.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/14

---

Appeal brought on 22 February 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-363/09: Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Gruppo Lepetit SpA

(Case C-81/11 P)

2011/C 139/25

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Gruppo Lepetit SpA

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | admit the appeal filed by the company Longevity Health Products, Inc. |
| --- | --- |

—

admit the appeal filed by the company Longevity Health Products, Inc.

| — | annul the decision of the General Court of 16 December 2010 in case T-363/09 |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the General Court of 16 December 2010 in case T-363/09

| — | order the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the General Court violated its right to due process of law by failing to grant a time period for the appellant to reply to the submissions of OHIM.

It is also submitted that the General Court did not deal with the arguments advanced by the holder of the trademark concerning the likelihood of confusion.

---
### §5524. Department of Commerce activities

#### (a) General responsibilities

As part of the Program described in subchapter I—

(1) the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall—

(A) conduct basic and applied measurement research needed to support various networking and information technology systems and capabilities;

(B) develop and propose standards and guidelines, and develop measurement techniques and test methods, for the interoperability and usability of networking and information technology systems; and

(C) be responsible for developing benchmark tests and standards for networking and information technology systems and software; and

(2) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall conduct basic and applied research in weather prediction and ocean sciences, particularly in development of new forecast models, in computational fluid dynamics, and in the incorporation of evolving computer architectures and networks into the systems that carry out agency missions.

#### (b) Networking and information technology security

The National Institute of Standards and Technology shall be responsible for developing and proposing standards and guidelines needed to assure the cost-effective security and privacy of Federal agency information and information systems.

(Pub. L. 102–194, title II, §204, Dec. 9, 1991, 105 Stat. 1601; Pub. L. 114–329, title I, §105(m), Jan. 6, 2017, 130 Stat. 2984.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2017—Subsec. (a)(1)(A). Pub. L. 114–329, §105(m)(1)(A), substituted "networking and information technology systems and capabilities" for "high-performance computing systems and networks".

Subsec. (a)(1)(B). Pub. L. 114–329, §105(m)(1)(B), substituted "interoperability and usability of networking and information technology systems" for "interoperability of high-performance computing systems in networks and for common user interfaces to systems".

Subsec. (a)(1)(C). Pub. L. 114–329, §105(m)(1)(C), substituted "networking and information technology" for "high-performance computing".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 114–329, §105(m)(2), in heading, substituted "Networking and information technology" for "High-performance computing and network" and, in text, substituted "The National Institute" for "Pursuant to the Computer Security Act of 1987 (Public Law 100–235; 101 Stat. 1724), the National Institute" and "Federal agency information and information systems" for "sensitive information in Federal computer systems".

Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 114–329, §105(m)(3), struck out subsecs. (c) and (d) which required a study of the impact of Federal procurement regulations and authorized appropriations for fiscal years 1992 to 1996.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Document Search 
-  Virginia Lender List 

# Virginia Lender List

## About this document and download

  Download  .xlsx

**Effective**

**Owned by**

**Related Programs**    Related programs:
### SUBCHAPTER II—PREVENTION OF UNINTENTIONAL INTRODUCTIONS OF NONINDIGENOUS AQUATIC SPECIES
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State v. Winslow , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-5129.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to f ormal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are reques ted to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohi o, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O
. 2020-O HIO -5129
T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLEE , v . W INSLOW , A PPELLANT
. [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State v. Winslow , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-5129.] Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority of State v. Brown. (No. 2019-0909―Submitted October 27, 2020―Decided November 4, 2 020.)
C ERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 28178, 2019-Ohio-2357.

__________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appe als is affirmed on the authori ty of
State v. Brown , ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2020-Ohio-4623, ___ N.E.3d ___.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F RENCH , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , and S TEWART , JJ., concur.

_________________ Theresa G. Haire, Montgomery County Public Defender, and Susan F. Souther, Assistant Public Defen der, for appellant, Bryant D. Wi nslow.

_________________
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Duane Eric West

, * From the 39 th District Court

of Haskell County,

Trial Court No. 6709

.

Vs. No. 11

- 13

- 00298

- CR * October 30 , 2015

The State of Texas

, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey , J.

(P anel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 GoAmerica, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  I, Donald G. Barnhart,  Chief  Financial
Officer 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  requirements  of Section  13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects,  the consolidated  financial  condition of the Company as of the dates
presented and consolidated  results of operations of the Company for the periods
presented.

Dated: August 14, 2007

                                 /s/ Donald G. Barnhart
                                 ----------------------
                                 Donald G. Barnhart
                                 Chief Financial Officer


This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
### §9708. Interagency Committee on Water Management and Infrastructure

#### (a) Establishment

There is established a committee, to be known as the "Interagency Committee on Water Management and Infrastructure" (in this section referred to as the "Water Policy Committee").

#### (b) Membership

The Water Policy Committee shall be composed of the following members:

(1) The Administrator.

(2) The Secretary of the Interior.

(3) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

(4) The Secretary of Agriculture.

(5) The Secretary of Commerce.

(6) The Secretary of Energy.

(7) The Secretary of the Army.

(8) The heads of such other agencies as the co-chairs consider appropriate.

#### (c) Co-chairs

The Water Policy Committee shall be co-chaired by the Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

#### (d) Meetings

The Water Policy Committee shall meet not less frequently than 6 times each year, at the call of the co-chairs.

#### (e) General purpose and duties

The Water Policy Committee shall ensure that agencies and departments across the Federal Government that engage in water-related matters, including water storage and supplies, water quality and restoration activities, water infrastructure, transportation on United States rivers and inland waterways, and water forecasting, work together where such agencies and departments have joint or overlapping responsibilities to—

(1) improve interagency coordination among Federal agencies and departments on water resource management and water infrastructure issues;

(2) coordinate existing water-related Federal task forces, working groups, and other formal cross-agency initiatives, as appropriate;

(3) prioritize managing the water resources of the United States and promoting resilience of the water-related infrastructure of the United States, including—

(A) increasing water storage, water supply reliability, and drought resiliency;

(B) improving water quality, source water protection, and nutrient management;

(C) promoting restoration activities;

(D) improving water systems, including with respect to drinking water, desalination, water reuse, wastewater, and flood control; and

(E) improving water data management, research, modeling, and forecasting;

(4) improve interagency coordination of data management, access, modeling, and visualization with respect to water-related matters;

(5) promote integrated planning for Federal investments in water-related infrastructure to enhance coordination and protect taxpayer investment; and

(6) support workforce development and efforts to recruit, train, and retain professionals to operate and maintain essential drinking water, wastewater, flood control, hydropower, water delivery, and water storage facilities in the United States.

#### (f) Cross-agency priority research needs

Not later than 1 year after December 27, 2022, the Water Policy Committee shall develop and submit to Congress a list of research needs that includes needs for cross-agency research and coordination.

(Pub. L. 117–316, §13, Dec. 27, 2022, 136 Stat. 4414.)
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Harvest  Valley  Ventures,
Inc.,  on Form  10-QSB for the period  ending  March 31,  2004 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, B. Stephen Bailey, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 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 result of  operations of the
Company.


Date: April 19, 2004

/s/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has 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.