alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 922
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 922 appear at 62 FR 3789, Jan. 27, 1997 and at 62 FR 67724, Dec. 30, 1997.

§ 922.224 Emergency regulations. ( a ) Where necessary to prevent or minimize the destruction of, loss of, or injury to a sanctuary resource, or to minimize the imminent risk of such destruction, loss, or injury, any and all activities are subject to immediate temporary regulation, including prohibition. An emergency regulation shall not take effect without the approval of the Governor of New York or her/his designee or designated agency.
( b ) Emergency regulations remain in effect until a date fixed in the rule or six months after the effective date, whichever is earlier. The rule may be extended once for not more than six months.
§ 1112.29 How does a third party conformity assessment body voluntarily discontinue its participation with the CPSC? ( a ) A third party conformity assessment body may voluntarily discontinue participation as a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body at any time and for any portion of its scope that is accepted by the CPSC. The third party conformity assessment body must notify the CPSC, in writing, which may be electronic. The notice must include: ( 1 ) Name, address, phone number, electronic mail address for the third party conformity assessment body and the person responsible for submitting the request;
( 2 ) Scope of the discontinuance;
( 3 ) Beginning date for the discontinuance;
( 4 ) Statement that the third party conformity assessment body understands that it must reapply for acceptance of the accreditation scope for which it is requesting discontinuance; and
( 5 ) Verification that the person requesting the discontinuance has the authority to make such a request on behalf of the third party conformity assessment body.
( b ) The CPSC may verify the information submitted in a notice of voluntary discontinuance.
( c ) Upon receipt of a notice from a third party conformity assessment body that it wishes to discontinue voluntarily as a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body, or after verifying the information in a notice, the CPSC will update its Web site to indicate that the CPSC no longer accepts the accreditation of the third party conformity assessment body for the scope indicated, as of the date provided in the notice.
( d ) Notwithstanding a third party conformity assessment body's voluntary discontinuance as a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body, the CPSC may begin or continue an investigation related to an adverse action under this part, or other legal action.
***EXHIBIT 32***

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERAND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

In connection with thereport on Form 10-K/A-2ofProvidence Resources, Inc. for the annual period ended December 31, 2007as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,Gilbert Burciaga,dohereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:         

|  | (1)      | Thisreportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (2)      | Theinformation contained in this report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the small business issuerat the endof the period covered by this report and resultsof operations of the small business issuerfor the period covered by this report. |
|--|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Date:December 8, 2008

     

/s/ Gilbert Burciaga

Gilbert Burciaga,Chief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer

Thiscertification accompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the small business issuerfor the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.                 A signed original of this written statement required by §906 hasbeen provided to the small business issuerand will be retained by the small business issuerand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

37
Editorial Note on Part 922
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 922 appear at 62 FR 3789, Jan. 27, 1997 and at 62 FR 67724, Dec. 30, 1997.

§ 922.7 Emergency regulations. ( a ) Where necessary to prevent or minimize the destruction of, loss of, or injury to a Sanctuary resource or quality, or minimize the imminent risk of such destruction, loss, or injury, any and all such activities are subject to immediate temporary regulation, including prohibition.
( b ) This section does not apply to the following national marine sanctuaries with site-specific regulations that establish procedures for issuing emergency regulations: ( 1 ) Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, § 922.112(e).
( 2 ) Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, § 922.165.
( 3 ) Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, § 922.185.
( 4 ) Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary, § 922.196.
( 5 ) Mallows Bay—Potomac River National Marine Sanctuary, § 922.204.
( 6 ) Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast National Marine Sanctuary, § 922.214.
( 7 ) Lake Ontario National Marine Sanctuary, § 922.224.
[88 FR 958, Jan 6, 2023, as amended by 89 FR 48286, June 6, 2024]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 25, 2024

No. 04-24-00158-CV

IN RE BEXAR APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Relator

Original Proceeding1

ORDER

On March 6, 2024, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. After considering the 

petition, the record, the response filed by real parties in interest, and relator’s reply, this court 

concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Therefore, the petition for a writ of mandamus 

is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8.

It is so ORDERED on September 25, 2024.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 25th day of September, 2024.

_____________________________

Luz Estrada, Chief Deputy Clerk

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2022-CI-14131 & 2022-CI-14159, pending in the 407th Judicial District 

Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Nicole Garza presiding.
§ 1502.34 Briefs and arguments. ( a ) Promptly after the taking of evidence is completed, the presiding officer will announce a schedule for the filing of briefs. Briefs are to be filed ordinarily within 45 days of the close of the hearing. Briefs must include a statement of position on each issue, with specific and complete citations to the evidence and points of law relied on. Briefs must contain proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
( b ) The presiding officer may, as a matter of discretion, permit oral argument after the briefs are filed.
( c ) Briefs and oral argument shall refrain from disclosing specific details of written and oral testimony and documents relating to trade secrets and privileged or confidential commercial or financial information, except as specifically authorized in a protective order issued by the presiding officer.
Mary 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 23, 2015

No. 04-15-00349-CV

Steven Mitchell GARY,

Appellant

v.

Mary ROMAN: Gerald C. Moton, Esq.; Irene Hall, Grand Jury Foreman; and unidentified 

Prosecutors of the 175th District Court,

Appellee

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-01986

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Steven Mitchell Gary filed the underlying action on February 5, 2015. The clerk’s record 

and docket sheet do not reflect that citation has issued or been served on any of the defendants. 

See TEX. R. CIV. P. 99 et seq. Nevertheless, Gary filed a motion for default judgment and, on 

July 13, 2015, he filed a notice of appeal, complaining about the denial of his motion.

After reviewing the clerk’s record, it appears that no final judgment has been rendered by 

the trial court. An order1 denying a motion for default judgment is interlocutory. This court does 

not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an interlocutory order unless it is expressly 

authorized by statute. Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352 (Tex. 1998); Jack B. Anglin Co., 

Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992). No statute or rule authorizes an appeal from an 

order denying a default judgment. 

Accordingly, we order a response due by August 3, 2015, showing cause why this 

appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. If appellant fails to satisfactorily respond 

within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). All deadlines 

in this matter are suspended until further order of the court. 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

 1 The clerk’s record contains several letters to Gary from the Chief Staff Attorney of the Bexar County Civil District 

Courts that state Gary’s motion for default judgment was denied by the Presiding District Judge. However, the 

record does not contain a signed order.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 23rd day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 (the Form 10-QSB) of Surrey Bank & Trust (the Company), we, Edward C. Ashby, III, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and Mark H. Towe, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:



(a) the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(b) the
information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form 10-QSB.



|By:  /s/ Edward C. Ashby, III |  | Date: November 13, 2003                       
|----------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------
|                              |  | Edward C. Ashby, III.                         
|                              |  | President and Chief Executive Officer         
|                              | 
|By:  /s/ Mark H. Towe         |  | Date: November 13, 2003                       
|                              |  | Mark H. Towe                                  
|                              |  | Sr. Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer



21
No: 13-049 June 7, 2013

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

NRC Issues Final Environmental Impact Statement

For Watts Bar Unit 2 Operating License

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has concluded there are no environmental impacts that 

would preclude issuing an operating license for the under-construction Watts Bar 2 reactor near Spring 

City, Tenn. The NRC’s conclusions are laid out in Supplement 2 to the Watts Bar 2 Final 

Environmental Statement. 

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) began Watts Bar 2’s operating license application in 

1976, when the NRC’s reactor licensing process involved first applying for a construction permit and 

then a license. TVA obtained construction permits for two Watts Bar reactors in 1973, with Unit 1 

completing the licensing process and starting operations in 1996. TVA halted construction of Unit 2 in 

late 1985, and then informed the NRC in Aug. 2007 that it would resume construction of Unit 2. TVA 

is requesting permission to operate Unit 2, a 1,150-megawatt electric, Westinghouse-designed 

pressurized-water reactor of the same type as Unit 1. The Watts Bar site is approximately 50 miles 

northeast of Chattanooga, Tenn.

TVA, which operates under many of the requirements of a U.S. government agency, issued its 

own Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Unit 2 in February 2008 and updated its 

operating license application on March 4, 2009. The NRC is required to do its own environmental 

review and held meetings near the plant in October 2009 to gather the community’s comments before 

issuing its draft conclusions in October 2011. The staff held additional meetings in December 2011 for 

the public to comment on the draft report. The NRC also sought input from federal, state, tribal, 

regional and local agencies during the review.

The NRC continues its safety review of the license application, and the agency expects to 

update its Final Safety Evaluation Report on Unit 2 in May 2014. The NRC must complete both the 

safety and environmental reviews before reaching a decision on whether TVA can begin operating 

Watts Bar Unit 2.

The supplement is available on the agency’s website, as well as the NRC’s electronic document 

database, ADAMS, under accession number ML13144A202. In addition, the Chattanooga-Hamilton 

County Bicentennial Library, at 1001 Broad St. in Chattanooga, Tenn., will have a hardbound copy of 

the supplement available for public inspection.
[Civil No. 315.]

#### SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE OF COUNTY OF YUMA, Appellant, v. CAROLINE E. REMBERT, Appellee.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Second Judicial District in and for the County of Yuma. Joseph H. Kibbey, Judge.

*444Samuel Purdy, W. H. Barnes, and J. H. Martin, for Appellant.

L. H. Hawkins, J. B. Woodward, and G. M. Knight, for Appellee.

September 30, 1892.

(Note by Reporter.—The record shows, “Opinion filed,” but none appears in the records of the office of the clerk of the supreme court.)

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

 

 

**               **In connection with thequarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Little Sioux Corn Processors, L.L.C. (the “Company”)for the three month fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, GaryGrotjohn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

 
|   |  /s/ Gary Grotjohn |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Gary Grotjohn           |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   | Dated:                  | February 14, 2005 |
#### § 5.63 Evidence; transcript; *in camera* orders; proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Sections 3.43, 3.44, 3.45, and 3.46 of the Commission's Rules of Practice shall govern, respectively, the receipt and objections to admissibility of evidence, the transcript of the hearing, *in camera* orders and the submission and consideration of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law except that (a) a copy of the hearing transcript shall be provided the respondent; and (b) the Commission has the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence on the record as a whole, the allegations stated in the order to show cause.
### Part A—Student Loans
ex10_182.htm


    
      

    

    Exhibit
      10.18.2

    


    AMENDMENT
      NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT

    


    


    AGREED,
      as of the 7th day of June 2007,
      between the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (FAMC) and Mary K. Waters
      (you), that the existing employment contract between the parties hereto, dated
      as of June 20, 2005, as amended through Amendment No 1, dated as of June 1,
      2006  (the Agreement), be and hereby is amended as
      follows:

    


    Sections
      1, 3 (a), and 7 (a) (3) of the
      Agreement are replaced in their entirety with the following new
      sections:

    


    1.                  Term.  The
      Term of this Agreement shall continue until July 1, 2009 or any earlier
      effective date of termination pursuant to Paragraph 7 hereof (the
“Term”).

    


    3
      (a).            Base
      Salary.  As of July 1, 2007, you will be paid a base salary
      (the Base Salary) during the Term of One Hundred Sixty-Eight Thousand Four
      Hundred Thirty-Four Dollars ($168,434) per year, payable in arrears on a
      bi-weekly basis.

    


    7
      (a)
      (3).       Farmer Mac may terminate your
      employment without “cause” at any time.   Such termination shall
      become effective on the earlier of July 1, 2009, or one year from the date
      of
      notice of such termination.

    


    As
      amended hereby, the Agreement
      remains in full force and effect.

     

      
        	
                Federal
                  Agricultural Mortgage Corporation

              	 	
                Employee

              
	 	 	 	 
	
                By:

              	
                /s/
                  Henry D. Edelman

              	 	
                 /s/
                  Mary K. Waters

              
	 	
                President
No. D-872.

#### In re Disbarment of Joyce.

It is ordered that Thomas M. Joyce, of Chicago, Ill., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring .him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
Exhibit 32


CERTIFICATION





In connection with the periodic report of The Clorox Company (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2018 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), we, Benno Dorer, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Kevin B. Jacobsen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to our knowledge:





|    |                                                                                                                                      
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.




This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.





Date: August 14, 2018





/s/ Benno DorerBenno DorerChairman and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Kevin B. JacobsenKevin B. JacobsenSenior Vice President – Chief Financial Officer
#### Albert Moses, Defendant in Error, v. Lazar Jacobsohn, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 21,069.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago;. the Hon, John K. Prindiville, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1915.

Affirmed.

Opinon filed January 11, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Albert Moses, plaintiff, brought an attachment suit against Lazar Jacobsohn, defendant, on the ground that defendant was a nonresident of the State and owed plaintiff a sum of money. The defendant put in a general appearance. On judgment for the plaintiff for damages and costs, the defendant brings error.

William M. Lawton and H. C. Lindsey, for plaintiff in error; Maxwell R. Herman, of counsel.

*414Abstract of the Decision.

Appeal and error, § 1301*— *when presumed trial court heard evidence to support judgment.*Where in an attachment suit the record shows that the trial court heard evidence and found against the defendant both as to the attachment and the merits of the action, but entered judgment on the main issues only the reviewing court will, in the absence of a bill of exceptions, presume that the trial court heard sufficient evidence to support the judgment, and it is immaterial whether any judgment was entered on the attachment issue.

Samuels & Samuels, for defendant in error.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.
§ 734.19 Transfer of access information. To the extent an authorization would be required to transfer “technology” or “software,” a comparable authorization is required to transfer access information if done with “knowledge” that such transfer would result in the release of such “technology” or “software” without a required authorization. Note 1 to § 734.19 :
For purposes of this section, a release of “software” includes source code and object code.
[81 FR 35605, June 3, 2016, as amended at 88 FR 63841, Sept. 18, 2023]
012

Miles

 ̄

Other Features

Road Level

Water

1

2

3

4

5

Legend

Subcategories to RX Areas

State Natural Area

Natural Resource Areas

Core Areas

Wildlife Refuge

Wetlands

Environmental Education &

Developed Recreation Areas

Developed Recreation

Environmental Education

Turkey Bay OHV

Administrative Areas

Administration

Communications

Utility Corridor

Prepared by US Forest Service, Land Between The Lakes

GIS Laboratory, September 2004

General Forest

Nature Watch Demo

Land

NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Between Lakes The

LRMP 

Prescription Areas

NORTH

Source scales vary, and accuracy of the final land cover has not been assessed. 

Lakes are associated with facilities. Honker and Energy Lakes are also wildlife 

refuges. All Research Natural Areas and State Natural Areas lie within the Core 

Areas. Core acreages are based on GIS data, not previously published. Closed 

facilities under Administrative Areas include Duncan Wildlife Restoration Area, 

Empire Farm, Youth Station, Lookout Tower, and Silo Overlook.

Disclaimer

Oak-Grassland Demo