alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 970.208 Fee. ( a ) *General.* Section 104 of the Act provides that no application for the issuance or transfer of an exploration license will be certified unless the applicant pays to NOAA a reasonable administrative fee, which must reflect the reasonable administrative costs incurred in reviewing and processing the application.
( b ) *Amount.* In order to meet this requirement, the application must include a fee payment of $100,000, payable to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce. If costs incurred by NOAA in reviewing and processing an application are significantly less than or in excess of the original fee, the agency subsequently will determine those differences in costs and adjust the fee accordingly. If the costs are significantly less, NOAA will refund the difference. If they are significantly greater, the applicant will be required to submit the additional payment prior to issue or transfer of the license. In the case of an application for transfer of a license to an entity which has previously been found qualified for a license, the Administrator may, on the basis of pre-application consultations pursuant to § 970.200(d), reduce the fee in advance by an appropriate amount which reflects costs avoided by reliance on previous findings made in relation to the proposed transferee. If an applicant elects to pursue the ‘banking’ option under § 970.601(d), and exercises that option by submitting two applications, only one application fee needs to be submitted with respect to each use of the ‘banking’ option.
[46 FR 45898, Sept. 15, 1981, as amended at 47 FR 5966, 5968, Feb. 9, 1982]
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report ofKnightsbridge Resources Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period end ofJune 30, 2006as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Ron Schmitz, Chief Executive Officer and 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) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(2) | The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   
|    | Dated this 17thday of August, 2007.                                                                                                                  
|   

RON SCHMITZRon SchmitzChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

























---
### Part C—Launch Services
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 28, 2011 

y0620 

Order 

 

June 28, 2011 

142833 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 142833 

 COA: 299698 

Board of Medicine: 2006-000253 

JOSEPH EDWIN OESTERLING, M.D., 

Respondent-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 15, 2011 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
### Part A—Space and Flight Support
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 1553

In re: JERRY JUNIOR BULLARD , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

. ( 1:17

- cr
- 00079

- AJT

- 1 ; 1:18

- cv
- 00974

- AJT )

Submitted : August 20, 2020 Decided: August 24, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN , and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jerry Junior Bullard, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jerry Junior Bullard petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and motion to appoint counsel.
He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the
district court’s docket reveals that the district court ruled on both of Bullard’s pending
motions. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Bullard ’s case, we deny the man damus petition as moot. 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.
PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 32.1






CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350






In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Mortgagebrokers.com Holdings, Inc. for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2010, I, Alex Haditaghi, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Mortgagebrokers.com Holdings, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:




1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Mortgagebrokers.com Holdings, Inc.






Dated:  November 18, 2010






MORTGAGEBROKERS.COM HOLDINGS, INC.






By:
/s/ Alex HaditaghiAlex Haditaghi

Principal Executive Officer,

Principal Accounting Officer

President, Secretary and Director
### Part N–1—Sexual Assault Services
Fw: Alternative threshold for NO 2 near-road monitors for your discussion at 

2:30

Lisa Heinzerling to: Mancini, Dominic J., hking 01/20/2010 11:04 AM

Cc:

Lydia Wegman, Richard Wayland, Lewis Weinstock, Nealson 

Watkins, Padmini Singh, Tricia Crabtree, Scott Jenkins, Charlotte 

Bertrand

Dom and Heidi,

EPA does not support the alternative threshold described in the email below.

Lisa

----- Forwarded by Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US on 01/19/2010 01:18 PM -----

From: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

To: dmancini@omb.eop.gov, Heidi King <hking@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Richard Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lewis Weinstock/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nealson 

Watkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Padmini Singh/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia 

Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Scott Jenkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Charlotte 

Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 01/19/2010 01:07 PM

Subject: Alternative threshold for NO2 near-road monitors for your discussion at 2:30

Dom and Heidi, 

I spoke with my management. We are willing to put forward an alternative threshold for the first tier of the 

near-road monitoring network for you to discuss with your management at your 2:30 meeting. The 

alternative would use a threshold of 500,000 people, rather than 350,000 people, in determining the 

number of required monitors for the first tier of the near-road network. This means that areas of 500,000 

or more population would be required to have one near-road monitor, for a total of 102 monitors, 

compared to the 143 monitors which would be required if we used the threshold of 350,000 people. The 

second tier of the near-road network, which requires an additional monitor in CBSAs of 2,500,000 people 

or more or an area which has one or more road segments with an AADT over 250,000, would remain 

unchanged. This means that the total number of required near-road monitors would be 126, rather than 

167. 

Please let me know if you have any questions about this alternative. We hope that if this approach works 

for you that we can close out this discussion today. I would appreciate it if one of you would call me after 

your 2:30 meeting and let me know if we have an agreement. Thanks. 

Lydia
§ 950.108 Preventing coercive activity. True voluntary giving is fundamental to Federal fundraising activities. Actions that do not allow free choices or create the appearance that employees do not have a free choice to give or not to give, or to publicize their gifts or to keep them confidential, are contrary to Federal fundraising policy. Activities contrary to the non-coercive intent of Federal fundraising policy are not permitted in campaigns. They include, but are not limited to: ( a ) Solicitation of employees by their supervisor or by any individual in their supervisory chain of command. This does not prohibit the head of an agency to perform the usual activities associated with the campaign kick-off and to demonstrate his or her support of the CFC in employee newsletters or other routine communications with the Federal employees.
( b ) Supervisory inquiries about whether an employee chose to participate or not to participate or the amount of an employee's donation. Supervisors may be given nothing more than summary information about the major units that they supervise.
( c ) Setting of 100 percent participation goals.
( d ) Establishing personal dollar goals and quotas.
( e ) Developing and using lists of non-contributors.
( f ) Providing and using contributor lists for purposes other than the routine collection and forwarding of contributions and allotments, and as allowed under § 950.501.
( g ) Using as a factor in a supervisor's performance appraisal the results of the solicitation in the supervisor's unit or organization.
### §14511. Appalachian regional energy hub initiative

(a) In General.—The Appalachian Regional Commission may provide technical assistance to, make grants to, enter into contracts with, or otherwise provide amounts to individuals or entities in the Appalachian region for projects and activities—

(1) to conduct research and analysis regarding the economic impact of an ethane storage hub in the Appalachian region that supports a more-effective energy market performance due to the scale of the project, such as a project with the capacity to store and distribute more than 100,000 barrels per day of hydrocarbon feedstock with a minimum gross heating value of 1,700 Btu per standard cubic foot;

(2) with the potential to significantly contribute to the economic resilience of the area in which the project is located; and

(3) that will help establish a regional energy hub in the Appalachian region for natural gas and natural gas liquids, including hydrogen produced from the steam methane reforming of natural gas feedstocks.

(b) Limitation on Available Amounts.—Of the cost of any project or activity eligible for a grant under this section—

(1) except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), not more than 50 percent may be provided from amounts made available to carry out this section;

(2) in the case of a project or activity to be carried out in a county for which a distressed county designation is in effect under section 14526, not more than 80 percent may be provided from amounts made available to carry out this section; and

(3) in the case of a project or activity to be carried out in a county for which an at-risk county designation is in effect under section 14526, not more than 70 percent may be provided from amounts made available to carry out this section.

(c) Sources of Assistance.—Subject to subsection (b), a grant provided under this section may be provided from amounts made available to carry out this section, in combination with amounts made available—

(1) under any other Federal program; or

(2) from any other source.

(d) Federal Share.—Notwithstanding any provision of law limiting the Federal share under any other Federal program, amounts made available to carry out this section may be used to increase that Federal share, as the Appalachian Regional Commission determines to be appropriate.

(Added Pub. L. 117–58, div. A, title I, §11506(e)(1), Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 585.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 2021, see section 10003 of Pub. L. 117–58, set out as an Effective Date of 2021 Amendment note under section 101 of Title 23, Highways.
#### James Zajac et al., Appellants, v E. Robert Wilson et al., Respondents.

[821 NYS2d 336]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Harold L. Galloway, J.), entered August 5, 2005. The order granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained by James Zajac (plaintiff) as the result of the alleged medical malpractice and negligence of Dr. E. Robert Wilson (defendant) in conducting a *1172series of independent medical examinations (IMEs). In a prior order, Supreme Court granted those parts of defendants’ motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the negligence cause of action and part of the medical malpractice cause of action, and that order was affirmed on appeal *(Zajac v Wilson, 2*AD3d 1410 [2003], *lv dismissed*5 NY3d 873 [2005]).

The court properly granted defendants’ motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the remainder of the complaint on the ground that the part of the medical malpractice cause of action surviving the prior motion is time-barred. Defendants met their initial burden on the motion by demonstrating that plaintiffs commenced the action more than *21⁄2*years after the alleged malpractice *(see Waring v Kingston Diagnostic Radiology Ctr.,*13 AD3d 1024, 1025 [2004]; *Couzens v Augustine,*305 AD2d 1012, 1013 [2003]). The burden then shifted to plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the applicability of the continuous treatment doctrine *(see Waring,*13 AD3d at 1025). Plaintiffs failed to meet that burden. “[E]ssential to the application of the doctrine is that there has been a course of treatment established with respect to the condition that gives rise to the lawsuit” *(Nykorchuck v Henriques,*78 NY2d 255, 258-259 [1991]). The record establishes that defendant conducted IMEs on behalf of the workers’ compensation insurance carriers that provided coverage to plaintiff’s employer for plaintiffs job-related back injuries, but provided no course of treatment for those injuries. “In the absence of continuing efforts by a doctor to treat a particular condition, none of the policy reasons underlying the continuous treatment doctrine justify [plaintiffs’] delay in bringing suit” *(Nykorchuck,*78 NY2d at 259). Finally, contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, defendants showed “good cause” for their delay in filing the motion, and thus the court properly exercised its discretion in entertaining the motion on the merits (CPLR 3212 [a]; *see Kunz v Gleeson,*9 AD3d 480, 481 [2004]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Scudder, Kehoe, Smith and Green, JJ.
No. IV-13-011

Contact: Victor Dricks 817-200-1128

 

 

 April 8, 2013

E-Mail: OPA4@nrc.gov

NRC SENDS AUGMENTED INSPECTION TEAM TO ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will send an Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) to 

Arkansas Nuclear One to review the circumstances surrounding an industrial accident in which a 

heavy load fell onto the Unit 1 turbine deck, causing a loss of offsite power to Unit 1 and an 

automatic shutdown of Unit 2.

Workers were moving a massive generator stator out of the plant’s turbine building 

during maintenance activity when a lifting rig collapsed about 7:45 a.m. on March 31, killing one 

person and injuring eight others. Entergy Operations Inc., which operates the plant, declared a 

Notice of Unusual Event, the lowest of four emergency classifications used by the NRC, but 

terminated it after taking corrective actions to stabilize the plant’s power supplies.

“An AIT is used when the NRC wants to promptly dig deeply into the circumstances 

surrounding an operational event,” said NRC Region IV Administrator Arthur T. Howell. “We 

want to make sure that all the circumstances that contributed to this event are well understood in 

order to prevent a recurrence.”

Unit 1 was in a refueling outage at the time and lost offsite power when electrical 

equipment was damaged. Unit 2 was operating at full power and automatically shut down when 

the impact of the crash caused a loss of electrical power to one of four reactor coolant pumps, 

causing it to shut down. Both plants are in stable condition, and there was no radiological release 

or danger to the public.

NRC Resident Inspectors responded to the control room to monitor site activities during 

the event and have been monitoring licensee activities and initial recovery actions. Two 

additional inspectors were sent to the site to assist on April 1.

The Augmented Inspection Team will put together a detailed chronology of the event, 

evaluate the adequacy of licensee actions in response to the incident and assess the factors which 

may have contributed to the event. The team’s report will document information gathered and 

identify areas for further inspection follow-up. 

The NRC will hold a public meeting with the licensee upon completion of the inspection 

to discuss its inspection findings. The meeting will be open to the public and the news media and 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Region IV

 1600 E. Lamar Blvd.

 Arlington, TX 76011 - 4125

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov
team members will be available to answer questions after the results are presented. The AIT will 

also issue a written report within 30 days of completion of the inspection.

###

News releases are available through a free Listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES 

link on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are 

posted to NRC's website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002

 

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of American Bank Holdings,Inc. (The “Company”), Hereby certifies that to his knowledge on the datehereof:

 

(a)          The Quarterly Report ofForm 10-QSB of the Company for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2005 filed on thedate hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(b)         Information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/John M. Wright                                 |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | John M. Wright                                    |
|   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   | May 13, 2005                                      |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to American Bank Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by AmericanBank Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

1

----
Table 24.  Assignment of race to unknowns by largest difference 
           between NCHS and Census proportions by state

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
Internet Release date: June 1997


STATE                   Assigned Race     Number of Unknowns

ALABAMA                 American Indian          7
ALASKA                  Black                    2
ARIZONA                 Black                    9
ARKANSAS                Asian                    4
CALIFORNIA              Black                  516
COLORADO                Black                   15
CONNECTICUT             White                   34
DELAWARE                American Indian          6
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA    American Indian        556
FLORIDA                 Asian                  121
GEORGIA                 American Indian         14
HAWAII                  Black                    2
IDAHO                   Black                    5
ILLINOIS                American Indian         70
INDIANA                 American Indian        125
IOWA                    Black                    3
KANSAS                  American Indian         43
KENTUCKY                Black                    8
LOUISIANA               American Indian        243
MAINE                   Black                    0
MARYLAND                White                  318
MASSACHUSETTS           White                   96
MICHIGAN                Asian                   50
MINNESOTA               Black                    9
MISSISSIPPI             White                    3
MISSOURI                White                   24
MONTANA                 Black                    0
NEBRASKA                Black                    2
NEVADA                  Black                   29
NEW HAMPSHIRE           Black                    2
NEW JERSEY              Asian                   84
NEW MEXICO              Black                    8
NEW YORK                American Indian         33
NORTH CAROLINA          White                   92
NORTH DAKOTA            Black                    1
OHIO                    Asian                   38
OKLAHOMA                Black                    5
OREGON                  Black                   57
PENNSYLVANIA            White                   45
RHODE ISLAND            White                   22
SOUTH CAROLINA          White                   54
SOUTH DAKOTA            Black                    0
TENNESSEE               White                    5
TEXAS                   American Indian         69
UTAH                    Black                   13
VERMONT                 Black                    5
VIRGINIA                American Indian         70
WASHINGTON              Black                    8
WEST VIRGINIA           American Indian          3
WISCONSIN               Asian                    1
WYOMING                 Black                    1
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 16, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 67185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25449]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting

Time and Date: 10 a.m., Thursday, November 18, 2004.

Place: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, 
VA 22314-3428.

Status: Open.

Matters to be Considered: 
    1. NCUA's Operating Budget for 2005/2006.
    2. NCUA's Overhead Transfer Rate.
    3. NCUA's Operating Fee Scale for 2005.
    4. Proposed Rule: Section 701.21(e), (f), and (g) of NCUA's Rules 
and Regulations, Loans to Members and Lines of Credit to Members.
    5. Final Rule: Parts 717 and 748 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, 
Fair Credit Reporting--Disposal of Consumer Information.

Recess: 11:15 a.m.

Time and Date: 11:30 a.m., Thursday, November 18, 2004.

Place: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, 
VA 22314-3428.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: 
    1. Administrative Action under section 206 of the Federal Credit 
Union Act. Closed pursuant to Exemptions (8), (9)(A)(ii), and 9(B).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, 
telephone: 703-518-6304.

Mary Rupp,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 04-25449 Filed 11-10-04; 4:06 pm]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-M