alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350In connection with the Quarterly Report of GeoGlobal Resources Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSBfor the quarter ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the Report), I, Jean Paul Roy, President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the*Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002*, that:1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the *SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934*; and 2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     /s/ Jean Paul Roy    Jean Paul Roy   President and Chief Executive Officer
### §1959. Prioritization of marine debris in existing innovation and entrepreneurship programs

In carrying out any relevant innovation and entrepreneurship programs that improve the innovation, effectiveness, and efficiency of the Marine Debris Program established under section 1952 of this title without undermining the purpose for which such program was established, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Energy, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the heads of other relevant Federal agencies, shall prioritize efforts to combat marine debris, including by—

(1) increasing innovation in methods and the effectiveness of efforts to identify, determine sources of, assess, prevent, reduce, and remove marine debris; and

(2) addressing the impacts of marine debris on—

(A) the economy of the United States;

(B) the marine environment; and

(C) navigation safety.

(Pub. L. 109–449, §10, as added Pub. L. 116–224, title I, §101(3), Dec. 18, 2020, 134 Stat. 1075.)
§ 297.305 Denial of requests to amend records. ( a ) If the Office or agency system manager decides not to amend the record in the manner sought, the requester should be notified in writing of the reasons for the denial.
( b ) The decision letter should also include the requester's right to appeal the denial and the procedures for appealing the denial to the appropriate official.
§ 1630.14 Appeals process. ( a ) Within 20 work days of receiving the request for review, the Executive Director will make a final determination on appeal. If a final decision cannot be made in 20 work days, the Privacy Act Officer will inform the requester of the reasons for the delay and the date on which a final decision can be expected. Such extensions are unusual, and should not exceed an additional 30 work days.
( b ) If the original request was for access and the initial determination is reversed, the procedures in § 1630.7 will be followed. If the initial determination is upheld, the requester will be so informed and advised of the right to judicial review pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(g).
( c ) If the initial denial of a request to amend a record is reversed, the Board or the record keeper will correct the record as requested and inform the individual of the correction. If the original decision is upheld, the requester will be informed and notified in writing of the right to judicial review pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(g) and the right to file a concise statement of disagreement with the Executive Director. The statement of disagreement should include an explanation of why the requester believes the record is inaccurate, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete. The Executive Director shall maintain the statement of disagreement with the disputed record, and shall include a copy of the statement of disagreement to any person or agency to whom the record has been disclosed, if the disclosure was made pursuant to § 1630.9.
[55 FR 18852, May 7, 1990, as amended at 64 FR 67695, Dec. 3, 1999; 79 FR 68094, Nov. 14, 2014]
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov

 

No. 06-075 May 31, 2006

NRC’S REVISED DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS PROGRAM ASSESSED

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an agency committed to promoting safety culture among

its staff and licensees, has released a comprehensive assessment of its Differing Professional Opinions

(DPO) Program, including a review of cases filed and employee perceptions of the program.

The report, issued by the NRC’s Office of Enforcement, covers the period from May 2004,

when the program was revised, until the end of last year. It also addresses employee concerns about the

program identified by the agency’s 2005 Safety Climate and Culture Survey. The results of that survey

were released in February. The DPO program assessment details the performance of the program and

how it is perceived by agency employees. The assessment identifies specific issues and

recommendations for each of the program’s performance objectives.

“The DPO Program is an important part of the NRC’s effort to ensure that all employees and

contractors feel free to express their views on issues related to the agency’s mission and strategic goals,

including safety, security, openness, effectiveness, and management, and that agency decision makers

have access to a wide range of information and opinions on these matters,” said Renée Pedersen, who

has managed the program since it was revamped two years ago and placed within the Office of

Enforcement.

During the period covered by the assessment, the NRC accepted nine DPOs from members of

the staff. Two of those were closed by the end of 2005 and resulted in improvements in agency

procedures. One was subsequently withdrawn and six remained under consideration at the end of 2005.

Two additional submissions were returned as premature because the issues raised were still undergoing

staff review.

One of the two DPO cases closed by the end of 2005 resulted in additional planned

improvements to the NRC’s evaluation of licensee performance during force-on-force exercises at

nuclear power plants. Such evaluations will now include additional performance assessment tools to

help identify areas for improvement, in addition to focusing on whether the security force successfully

defended the target sets. The second closed DPO case questioned whether NRC staff had adequately

reviewed the Oconee nuclear plant’s fatigue analysis for pipe whip restraints. Although the review

panel concluded that the staff’s review was appropriate, it recommended improvements to the agency’s

significance determination process and, further, that the pipe whip restraint issue be revisited in a

future inspection.
The assessment report is available in the NRC’s ADAMS document management system at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html by entering accession number “ML061370538"

in the search window.

###
### §467g–1. Dam safety training

At the request of any State that has or intends to develop a State dam safety program, the Administrator shall provide training for State dam safety staff and inspectors.

(Pub. L. 92–367, §10, as added Pub. L. 107–310, §5(2), Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2453; amended Pub. L. 113–121, title III, §3001(a)(1), June 10, 2014, 128 Stat. 1282.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 10 of Pub. L. 92–367 was renumbered section 12, and is classified to section 467h of this title.

Another prior section 10 of Pub. L. 92–367 was classified to section 467i of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 104–303.

#### Amendments

2014—Pub. L. 113–121 substituted "Administrator" for "Director".
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 2, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63558-63559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24364]


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

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for 
Extension of a Currently Approved Collection; Comment Request

AGENCY: National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

ACTION: Request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The NCUA is submitting the following information collection to 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35). This information collection is published to obtain 
comments from the public.

DATES: Comments will be accepted until January 3, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to 
the NCUA Clearance Officer listed below:

[[Page 63559]]

    Clearance Officer: Mr. Neil McNamara, National Credit Union 
Administration,1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428, Fax no. 
(703) 518-6669, e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#224f414c434f435043624c4157430c454d54"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f39e909d929e928192b39d908692dd949c85">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or 
a copy of the information collection request, should be directed to 
Tracy Sumpter at the National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke 
Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428, or at (703) 518-6444.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposal for the following collection of 
information:
    Title: Forms and Instructions for Central Liquidity Facility Loans.
    OMB Number: 3133-0064.
    Form Number: NCUA--7000, 7001, 7002, 7003 and 7004.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Description: Forms used by each borrower from the CLF.
    Respondents: Credit unions that borrow from the CLF.
    Estimated No. of Respondents/Record keepers: 25.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Response: 1 hour.
    Frequency of Response: Other. As the need for borrowing arises.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 25 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: 0.

    By the National Credit Union Administration Board on October 26, 
2004.
Mary Rupp,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 04-24364 Filed 11-1-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 212.04 Eligibility of applicants. ( a ) To be eligible for an award of attorney fees and other expenses under the Act, the applicant must be a party to the adversary adjudication for which it seeks an award. The term *party* is defined in 5 U.S.C. 551(3) and 19 CFR 210.04. The applicant must show that it meets all conditions of eligibility set out in this subpart and in subpart B.
( b ) The types of eligible applicants are as follows: ( 1 ) An individual with a net worth of not more than $1 million;
( 2 ) The sole owner of an unincorporated business who has a net worth of not more than $5 million, including both personal and business interests, and not more than 500 employees;
( 3 ) A charitable or other tax-exempt organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)) with not more than 500 employees;
( 4 ) A cooperative association as defined in section 15(a) of the Agricultural Marketing Act (12 U.S.C. 1144j(a)) with not more than 500 employees; and
( 5 ) Any other partnership, corporation, association, or public or private organization with a net worth of not more than $5 million and not more than 500 employees.
( c ) For the purpose of eligibility, the net worth and number of employees of an applicant shall be determined as of the date the adversary adjudication was initiated.
( d ) An applicant who owns an unincorporated business will be considered to be an “individual” rather than a “sole owner of an unincorporated business” if the issues on which the applicant prevails are related primarily to personal interests rather than to business interests.
( e ) The employees of an applicant include all persons who regularly perform services for remuneration for the applicant under the applicant's direction and control. Part-time employees shall be included on a proportional basis.
( f ) The net worth and number of employees of the applicant and all of its affiliates shall be aggregated to determine eligibility. Any individual, corporation or other entity that directly or indirectly controls or owns a majority of the voting shares or other interest of the applicant, or any corporation or other entity of which the applicant directly or indirectly owns or controls a majority of the voting shares or other interest, will be considered an affiliate for purposes of this part, unless the presiding officer determines that such treatment would be unjust and contrary to the purposes of the Act in light of the actual relationship between the affiliated entities. In addition, the presiding officer may determine that financial relationships of the applicant other than those described in this paragraph constitute special circumstances that would make an award unjust.
( g ) An applicant that participates in a proceeding primarily on behalf of one or more other persons or entities that would be ineligible is not itself eligible for an award.
### SUBCHAPTER V—NO VESSEL UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES TO NEGLECT PROPER PRECAUTIONS
### §2355. Prior project authorization

In any case in which a project under the jurisdiction of the Secretary is budgeted under a different business line than the business line under which the project was originally authorized, the Secretary shall ensure that the project is carried out in accordance with any requirements that apply to the business line under which the project was originally authorized.

(Pub. L. 115–270, title I, §1127, Oct. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 3780.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018, and also as part of the America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, and not as part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 which comprises this chapter.

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

#### "Secretary" Defined

Secretary means the Secretary of the Army, see section 102 of Pub. L. 115–270, set out as a note under section 2201 of this title.
#### § 191.158 Procedures.

When the drawback claim has been completed and the bill of lading filed, together with the landing certificate, if required, the reports of inspection and lading made, and the clearance of the exporting conveyance established by the record of clearance in the case of direct exportation or by certificate in the case of transportation and exportation, the drawback office shall verify the importation by referring to the import records to ascertain the amount of duty paid on the merchandise exported. To the extent appropriate and not inconsistent with the provisions of this subpart, drawback entries shall be liquidated in accordance with the provisions of § 191.81 of this part.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-24-00116-CR

IN RE CHRISTIAN ESQUIVEL

Original Proceeding

From the 66th District Court

Hill County, Texas

Trial Court No. 30,367

DISSENTING OPINION

I would request a response. While the allegations and request for relief are a bit 

muddled, it is clear that Esquivel filed a motion in August of 2022 for which he has 

received no ruling. Then, in an effort to get a ruling, he sought to dismiss that motion 

without prejudice and file a new motion. And because he did not get a ruling on that 

motion, he wrote to the trial court clerk. I think an appropriately broad reading of the 

pro se pleadings make it clear that Esquivel has filed a motion and endeavored in an 

appropriate manner to bring it to the trial court's attention but has received no ruling. He 

asserts he is entitled to a ruling. Esquivel is clearly not entitled to relief on the second 

issue, and thus I could concur in the denial of that issue. I would, however, be inclined 
In re Esquivel Page 2

to request a response from the parties limited to the first issue because after three efforts 

via letters to the clerk, he still does not have a ruling. We cannot compel what the ruling 

is, but at some point, he is entitled to a ruling.1

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Dissenting Opinion delivered and filed May 9, 2024

1 See In re Rangel, 570 S.W.3d 968, 970-71 (Tex. App.—Waco 2019, orig. proceeding) (Chief Justice Gray 

concurring) ("The State, as the real party in interest in this proceeding, and the Court, fault Rangel for not 

bringing forth any evidence that his motion for post-conviction DNA testing was actually brought to the 

attention of the trial court. Technically that is correct. But then ask yourself; how exactly is an inmate 

supposed to do that? It is not like he can take a copy to the trial court's office, courtroom, or home to "serve" 

the trial court with a copy of the motion. And no matter how many letters the inmate writes, in all 

likelihood those letters are going straight to a file in the clerk's office. Although those letters may possibly 

get as far as the court coordinator, they do not necessarily make it to the trial court, even if addressed for 

delivery only to the trial court judge. But even then, how is the inmate supposed to get any evidence that 

the trial court was actually made aware of the motion? This Court requested a response from the parties. 

The trial court is a party, the respondent. We could infer from that procedure the trial court is now aware 

of the motion. Maybe Rangel can now use this proceeding and that inference to compel a ruling if one is 

not timely received after this Court's opinion and judgment issue."). In this instance, Esquivel has shown 

that he sought to bring his motion to the attention of the trial court by writing to the trial court clerk.
### §2284. Benefits and costs attributable to environmental measures

In the evaluation by the Secretary of benefits and costs of a water resources project, the benefits attributable to measures included in a project for the purpose of environmental quality, including improvement of the environment and fish and wildlife enhancement, shall be deemed to be at least equal to the costs of such measures.

(Pub. L. 99–662, title IX, §907, Nov. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 4188.)
§ 330.704 Minimum criteria for agency definition of “well-qualified”. ( a ) At a minimum, agencies must define “well-qualified” as having knowledge, skills, abilities, and/or competencies clearly exceeding the minimum qualification requirements for the vacancy. The agency definition may or may not equate to the highly or best qualified assessment criteria established for the vacancy; however, the agency definition of “well-qualified” must satisfy the criteria in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) Under an agency's definition of “well-qualified,” the agency must be able to determine whether an ICTAP eligible: ( 1 ) Meets the basic eligibility requirements (including employment suitability requirements under part 731 of this chapter and any medical qualification requirements), qualification standards (including minimum educational and experience requirements), and any applicable selective factors;
( 2 ) Is physically qualified, with or without reasonable accommodation, to perform the essential duties of the position;
( 3 ) Meets any special qualifying conditions of the position;
( 4 ) Is able to satisfactorily perform the duties of the position upon entry; and
( 5 ) At agency discretion, either: ( i ) Rates at or above specified level(s) on all quality ranking factors; or
( ii ) Rates above minimally qualified in the agency's rating and ranking process.
#### Bernhard Ueberwasser, Plaintiff, v. Sophia Heen and Others, Defendants.

Motion for stay granted, without costs. Present — Burr, Carr, Rich, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.
### §33. Little River, Arkansas, from Big Lake to Marked Tree

Little River, from Big Lake in Mississippi County to Marked Tree in Poinsett County, Arkansas, is declared to be not a navigable waterway of the United States within the meaning of the laws enacted by Congress for the protection of such waterways.

(Mar. 2, 1919, ch. 95, §4, 40 Stat. 1287.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is from section 4 of act Mar. 2, 1919, popularly known as the "Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1919".
#### § 300.408 Corrective action.

Upon evidence of failure to comply with these regulations, OPM may, pursuant to its authority, order the agency to take appropriate corrective action.
#### Sarah Drachenberg, Respondent, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Long Island Railroad Company, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur. .
### §551. Policy of Government as to terminal facilities for new projects

It is declared to be the policy of the Congress that water terminals are essential at all cities and towns located upon harbors or navigable waterways and that at least one public terminal should exist, constructed, owned, and regulated by the municipality or other public agency of the State and open to the use of all on equal terms. The Secretary of the Army, through the Chief of Engineers, shall give full publicity, as far as may be practicable, to this provision.

(Mar. 2, 1919, ch. 95, §1, 40 Stat. 1286; July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, §205(a), 61 Stat. 501.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is from act Mar. 2, 1919, popularly known as the "Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1919".

The original text of said section 1 read as follows: "It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress that water terminals are essential at all cities and towns located upon harbors or navigable waterways and that at least one public terminal should exist, constructed, owned, and regulated by the municipality, or other public agency of the State and open to the use of all on equal terms, and with the view of carrying out this policy to the fullest possible extent the Secretary of War is hereby vested with the discretion to withhold, unless the public interests would seriously suffer by delay, monies appropriated in this Act for new projects adopted herein, or for the further improvement of existing projects if, in his opinion, no water terminals exist adequate for the traffic and open to all on equal terms, or unless satisfactory assurances are received that local or other interests will provide such adequate terminal or terminals. The Secretary of War, through the Chief of Engineers, shall give full publicity, as far as may be practicable, to this provision."

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

#### Change of Name

Department of War designated Department of the Army and title of Secretary of War changed to Secretary of the Army by section 205(a) of act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, 61 Stat. 501. Section 205(a) of act July 26, 1947, was repealed by section 53 of act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 641. Section 1 of act Aug. 10, 1956, enacted "Title 10, Armed Forces" which in sections 3010 to 3013 continued Department of the Army under administrative supervision of Secretary of the Army.
EXHIBIT 13.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the annual report of Yanzhou Coal Mining Co., Ltd., a
joint stock limited company incorporated in the Peoples Republic of China with limited liability (the Company), on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Wu Yuxiang, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. $ 1350), that to the best of my knowledge: (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, our financial condition and results of our operations.



/s/ Wu YuxiangWu YuxiangChief Financial OfficerJune 30, 2005




*A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.