alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### PART II—OPERATIONS

Sec.
5411.
Use of brewery.
5412.
Removal of beer in containers or by pipeline.
5413.
Brewers procuring beer from other brewers.
5414.
Removals from one brewery to another belonging to the same brewer. 1

5415.
Records and returns.
5416.
Definitions of package and packaging.
5417.
Pilot brewing plants.
5418.
Beer imported in bulk.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior part II consisted of sections 5411 to 5416, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1313.

#### Amendments

**1997**—Pub. L. 105–34, title XIV, §1421(b), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 1049, added item 5418.

**1971**—Pub. L. 91–673, §4(b), Jan. 12, 1971, 84 Stat. 2058, substituted "Definitions of package and packaging" for "Definitions of bottle and bottling" in item 5416 and added item 5417.

1  So in original. Section catchline amended by Pub. L. 116–260 without corresponding amendment of part analysis.
TSCA Section 5(e) Consent Order 

 for Contract Manufacturer 

Premanufacture Notice (PMN) P-95-1098 

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 26
EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 26
EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 26
 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 26
 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 26
 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 26
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 26
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 26
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 26
 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 10 of 26
 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 11 of 26
 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 12 of 26
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 13 of 26
 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 14 of 26
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 15 of 26
 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 16 of 26
 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 17 of 26
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 18 of 26
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 19 of 26
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 20 of 26
 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 21 of 26
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 22 of 26
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 23 of 26
 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 24 of 26
 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 25 of 26
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 26 of 26
----

Acknowledgement of receipt of complaint No 2005/4313 — SG(2005)A/1204

(2005/C 233/02)

----
1

Sutton, Lisa

From: Frey, Nathan J. <Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 4:16 PM

To: Brachtl, Megan

Cc: Lorang, Phil; Schillo, Bruce; Balserak, Paul; Sutton, Lisa; Coda, Tom

Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO 12866 and 13563: SSM Petition Supplemental 

Proposal 

Attachments: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866_13563_SSM_Petition_2060-AR68

_Supplemental_Proposal_FRN_20140717.docx

Attached please find a summary of interagency comments under EO 12866 and 13563 with respect to the EPA 

supplemental proposed rule entitled, State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of 

Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, 

Shutdown and Malfunction; Supplemental Proposal to Address Affirmative Defense Provisions in States Included in the 

Petition for Rulemaking and in Additional States.

Please let me know if you have any questions. 

Nathan
#### Daniel Assael et al., Partners, Trading under the Name of Sunkist Sales Co., Respondents, v. Spen Industries Corp., Appellant.

*691No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
§ 3508.14 How will BLM publish the notice of lease sale? ( a ) Once we determine which lands are available for leasing, we will publish a notice of lease sale at least once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the area where the lands are situated. We will also post the notice of lease sale for 30 days in the public room of the BLM office which administers the lands.
( b ) The notice will include: ( 1 ) The time and place of sale;
( 2 ) The bidding method, including opening and closing dates for bidding;
( 3 ) A description of the tract BLM is offering;
( 4 ) A description of the mineral deposit BLM is offering;
( 5 ) The minimum bid we will consider; and
( 6 ) Information on where you can get a copy of the proposed lease and a detailed statement of the lease sale terms and conditions.
( 7 ) If the tract being offered for competitive sale was nominated by an applicant, a statement of the total cost recovery fee paid to BLM by the applicant under § 3508.12 up to 30 days before the competitive lease sale.
[64 FR 53536, Oct. 1, 1999, as amended at 70 FR 58877, Oct. 7, 2005]
§ 3809.432 What process will BLM follow in reviewing a modification of my plan of operations? ( a ) BLM will review and approve a modification of your plan of operations in the same manner as it reviewed and approved your initial plan under §§ 3809.401 through 3809.420; or
( b ) BLM will accept a minor modification without formal approval if it is consistent with the approved plan of operations and does not constitute a substantive change that requires additional analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act.
#### Henry J. Lunde, Inc., Respondent, v. John H. Koegel et al., Defendants, and Manbay Estates, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellants. (Action No. 2.)

Close, P. J., Hagarty, Adel, Taylor and Lewis, JJ., concur.
### §1145. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 90–93, §5, Sept. 27, 1967, 81 Stat. 229, which related to disposition of apportioned shares, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
JAIME MELENDEZ,
Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

, Respondent

______________________

2024

- 1950

______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. SF

- 0752

- 24

- 0246

- I

- 1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

Before D YK
, R EYNA

, and C HEN
, Circuit Judges

.
P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

In response to this court’s July 17, 2024 show cause order, the Merit Systems Protection Board argues for dismissal while Jaime Melendez seeks to proceed with the case

. Mr. Melendez appealed to the Board alleging that hisresignation from the Department of the Treasury was involuntary and based, at least in part, on disability Case: 24-1950 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 09/17/2024MELENDEZ v. MSPB 2

discrimination. T he administrative judge dismissed Mr. Melendez’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction

. Mr. Melendez filed a petition for review with the Board, which remains pending, and a petition for review with this court. In filings with this court, Mr. Melendez states that he abandons the “claim that [he] was discriminated against” and will “only pursue civil

- service claims in the Federal Circuit.” ECF
No. 4 at 3

. 1

We dismiss. This court only ha s jurisdiction over “an appeal from a final order or final decision of the

. . . Board.” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). A timely petition for Board review
renders th e initial decision non

- final. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(a); Weed v. Soc. Sec. Admin. , 571 F.3d 1359,

1361

– 63 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Given Mr. Melendez’s pending petition at the Board, we currently lack jurisdiction. After
the Board issues a final decision o n his petition , he may, ifnecessary, file a timely petition for this court’s review. Alternatively, if Mr. Melendez wishes to forgo Board reviewof his petition and instead directly pursue this court’s review, he may wish to review the Board’s withdrawal policy
as ide ntified by the Clerk of the Board in a letter accompanying the certified list in this case. See ECF No. 11 at 1; see also June 2022 Board Policy. 2

1 Mr. Melendez indicated that he was seeking this court’s review of his involuntary resignation claim while simultaneously seeking review of the Board’s decision before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but the parties ’ responses confirm that is not the circumstance.
See ECF No. 16 at 2 ; ECF No. 15 at 3 n.1.

2 Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., Policy Regarding Clerk’s Authority to Grant Requests to Withdraw Petitions for Review (2022), Case: 24-1950 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 09/17/2024MELENDEZ v. MSPB 3

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The petition for review is dismissed.

(2) All pending motions are denied.

(3) Each party shall bear its own costs.

September 17 , 2024
Date F OR THE C OURT

https://www.mspb.gov/appeals/files/Policy_Regarding_Withdrawal_of_a_Petition_for_Review_1515773.pdf (last visited September 6, 2024). Case: 24-1950 Document: 17 Page: 3 Filed: 09/17/2024
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-22-00262-CR

IN RE SCOTTIE H. GIBSON

Original Proceeding

From the 249th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-F202000027

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Scottie Gibson’s petition for a writ of mandamus, filed on August 12, 2022, is 

denied.

STEVE SMITH

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and 

Justice Smith

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed August 17, 2022

Do not publish

[OT06]
### §2206. Liability of life insurance beneficiaries

Unless the decedent directs otherwise in his will, if any part of the gross estate on which tax has been paid consists of proceeds of policies of insurance on the life of the decedent receivable by a beneficiary other than the executor, the executor shall be entitled to recover from such beneficiary such portion of the total tax paid as the proceeds of such policies bear to the taxable estate. If there is more than one such beneficiary, the executor shall be entitled to recover from such beneficiaries in the same ratio. In the case of such proceeds receivable by the surviving spouse of the decedent for which a deduction is allowed under section 2056 (relating to marital deduction), this section shall not apply to such proceeds except as to the amount thereof in excess of the aggregate amount of the marital deductions allowed under such section.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 402; Pub. L. 94–455, title XX, §2001(c)(1)(H), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1852.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–455 substituted "the taxable estate" for "the sum of the taxable estate and the amount of the exemption allowed in computing the taxable estate, determined under section 2051" after "policies bear to".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1976 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 94–455 applicable to estates of decedents dying after Dec. 31, 1976, see section 2001(d)(1) of Pub. L. 94–455, set out as a note under section 2001 of this title.
EXHIBIT 99.6



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Peter Barnes, Chief Financial Officer of Wheaton River Minerals Ltd. (the Registrant), certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of the Registrant;



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



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;



4. The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:



a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;



b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c. Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the
annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Registrants auditors and the audit committee of the Registrants board of directors (and persons performing the equivalent function):



a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely





---

to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: May 18, 2004



|                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                  
|/s/    Peter Barnes                                               
|                                                                  
|Peter Barnes Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer)
(No. 882

Claimant awarded $177.60 with interest.)

#### Alice May Warner and Clifford R. French, Executors of Last Will and Testament of Mary M. Warner, Deceased, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 16, 1925.*

Inheritance *tax*— ¡Claimant *entitled to refund. Sec.*25. When an inheritance tax has been assessed and paid under Sec. 25, Inheritance Tax Law by reason of the happening of certain contingencies mentioned in the will, and the estate is re-assessed upon a proper proceeding and upon a hearing it appears by the removal of the contingencies the estate is not liable to the tax: *Held,*Claimant entitled to a refund of the tax paid.

Burke, Jackson & Burke, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; George C. Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion, of the court:

This action is brought by the executors of the last will and testament of Mary M. Warner, deceased, who died testate in Cook County, Illinois, December 16, 1915, and her will admitted to probate in said county February 1, 1916.

May 20, 1916, paid the inheritance taxes in said estate in the sum of $439.28 net, and on March 31, 1917, the said estate was declared settled, the executrix discharged.

By reason of the happening of certain contingencies named in will and shown in the proof herein, it became necessary to make a re-assessment under Section 25 of inheritance tax laws of Illinois. By removal of certain contingencies, the estate became freed from liabilities to pay such tax, as was found by order entered by the county court, and claimants are therefore entitled to recover such taxes so paid, under Section 25 aforesaid.

The Attorney General consents to the same. We accordingly award claimants the sum of $177.60, with 3% interest per annum from the 20th day of May, 1916.
SCWC-29934

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

STATE OF HAWAI#I ,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

KEVIN HIROYUKI AKITAKE,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(ICA NO. 29934; CASE NO. 1DTA-08-09688)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna JJ. and 

Circuit Judge Del Rosario, in place of Duffy, J., recused)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Kevin Hiroyuki Akitake’s

application for writ of certiorari, filed on February 7, 2012, is

hereby accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that no oral argument will be

heard in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant

to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move

for retention of oral argument. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 20, 2012.

R. Patrick McPherson for

petitioner/defendantappellant on the

application

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Dexter D. Del Rosario

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-29934

20-MAR-2012

02:56 PM
§ 3101.13 Stipulations and information notices. ( a ) The BLM may consider the sensitivity and importance of potentially affected resources and any uncertainty concerning the present or future condition of those resources and will assess whether a resource is adequately protected by stipulation while considering the restrictiveness of the stipulation on operations.
( b ) The authorized officer may require stipulations as conditions of lease issuance. Stipulations will become part of the lease and will supersede inconsistent provisions of the standard lease form. Any party submitting a bid under part 3120 will be deemed to have agreed to stipulations applicable to the specific parcel as indicated in the Notice of Competitive Lease Sale available from the proper BLM office.
( c ) The BLM may attach an information notice to the lease. An information notice has no legal consequences, except to give notice of existing requirements, and may be attached to a lease by the authorized officer at the time of lease issuance to convey certain operational, procedural or administrative requirements relative to lease management within the terms and conditions of the standard lease form. Information notices may not be a basis for denial of lease operations.
( d ) Where the surface managing agency is the Fish and Wildlife Service, leases will be issued subject to stipulations prescribed by the Fish and Wildlife Service as to the time, place, nature and condition of such operations in order to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife populations and habitat and other refuge resources on the areas leased. The specific conduct of lease activities on any refuge lands will be subject to site-specific stipulations prescribed by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
### PART I—RULES OF GENERAL APPLICATION TO BANKING INSTITUTIONS

Sec.
581.
Definition of bank.
582.
Bad debts, losses, and gains with respect to securities held by financial institutions.
[583.
Repealed.]
584.
Common trust funds.
585.
Reserves for losses on loans of banks.
[586.
Repealed.]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1986**—Pub. L. 99–514, title IX, §901(d)(4)(H), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2380, struck out item 586 "Reserves for losses on loans of small business investment companies, etc."

**1976**—Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1901(b)(18), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1796, struck out item 583 "Deductions of dividends paid on certain preferred stock".

**1969**—Pub. L. 91–172, title IV, §431(c)(2), Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 620, substituted "Bad debts, losses, and gains with respect to securities held by financial institutions", for "Bad debt and loss deduction with respect to securities held by banks" in item 582, and added items 585 and 586.
**Exhibit 31.1**
I, Thomas J. Stallings, certify that :
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Internet Commerce Corporation; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b.  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our report about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  c.  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a.  All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial report which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b.  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: June 8, 2005     By: /s/ Thomas J. Stallings      Thomas J. Stallings   Chief Executive Officer
§ 35.47 Limitations. ( a ) The notice of hearing with respect to a claim or statement must be served in the manner specified in § 35.8 of this part within 6 years after the date on which such claim or statement is made.
( b ) If the defendant fails to file a timely answer, service of a notice under § 35.10(b) of this part shall be deemed a notice of hearing for purposes of this section.
( c ) The statute of limitations may be extended by agreement of the parties.
#### Godfrey *v.*The State.

Lumpkin, J.

1. The charge to the effect that the law presumes every homicide to be malicious until the contrary appears from circumstances of alleviations, excuse, or justification, and that -it is incumbent upon the prisoner to make out such circumstances to the satisfaction of the jury, unless they appear from the evidence adduced against him, was in accord with the decision in the ease of *Mann*v. *State,*124 *Ga.*760 (53 S. E. 324, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 934).

2. The complaint that certain portions of the charge were without foundation in the evidence was not well taken.

*572January 10, 1911.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Freeman. Meriwether superior court. October 28, 1910.

*J. F. J ones*and *J. F. Hatchett,*for plaintiff in error.

*.H. A. Hall, attorney-general,*and *J. B. Terrell, solicitor-general,*contra.

■ 3. The evidence supported the verdict, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment ajfu'med.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.*