alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 81207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27490]


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

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION


Sending Case Issuances Through Electronic Mail

AGENCY: Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On a temporary basis, the Federal Mine Safety and Health 
Review Commission will be sending most issuances through electronic 
mail and will not be monitoring incoming physical mail or facsimile 
transmissions.

DATES: Applicable: December 9, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Stewart, Deputy General Counsel, 
Office of the General Counsel, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review 
Commission, at (202) 434-9935; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5d2e2e29382a3c2f291d3b302e352f3e733a322b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="23505057465442515763454e504b51400d444c55">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Until May 31, 2021, most case issuances of 
the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (FMSHRC), 
including inter alia notices, decisions, and orders, will be sent only 
through electronic mail. Further, FMSHRC will not be monitoring 
incoming physical mail or facsimile described in 29 CFR 2700.5(c)(2). 
If possible, all filings should be e-filed as described in 29 CFR 
2700.5(c)(1).

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 823.

    Dated: December 9, 2020.
Sarah L. Stewart,
Deputy General Counsel, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review 
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2020-27490 Filed 12-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6735-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6225

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STEPHEN ZEBROWSKI, JR., a/k/a Junior, a/k/a Lewis Brady, a/k/a Stevon Green, a/k/a Edward Cartwight, a/k/a Felex C. Brown, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-96-41) Submitted: June 4, 2002 Decided: June 24, 2002 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen Zebrowski, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mary Hannah Lauck, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Stephen Zebrowski, Jr. appeals the district court’s order denying his motion requesting “nunc pro tunc designation for an order specifically setting aside” his fine. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Zebrowski’s challenge to his fine is precluded under res judicata, because he previously litigated this claim. Allen v. McCurry , 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980); Meekins v. United Transp. Union , 946 F.2d 1054, 1057 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying Zebrowski’s motion. United States v. Zebrowski , No. CR-96-41 (E.D. Va. Jan. 15, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Xuedong Hu, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Alpha Spacecom, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;



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



4. I am responsible for  establishing  and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures  (as defined in Exchange Act Rules  13a-15(e) and  15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



a) Designed such disclosure  controls and procedures,  or caused such disclosure controls and  procedures  to be designed  under my  supervision,  to ensure that material  information  relating  to the small  business  issuer,  including  its consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) Omitted;



c)  Evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  small  business  issuer's  disclosure controls and procedures  and presented in this report my  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



d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business  issuer's  internal control  over  financial  reporting  that  occurred  during  the small  business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business  issuer's  fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual  report) that has  materially  affected,  or is reasonably  likely to materially  affect,  the small business  issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and



5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial  reporting,  to the small  business  issuer's  auditors  and the audit committee  of the  small  business  issuer's  board  of  directors  (or  persons performing the equivalent functions):



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 small  business  issuer'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 small business  issuer's  internal control over financial reporting.

May 18, 2004

/s/ Xuedong Hu

Name:  Xuedong Hu

Title:  Chief Executive Officer
§ 18.97 Inspection of machines; minimum requirements. ( a ) Except as provided in § 18.95, all machines approved under the provisions of this subpart E shall, where practicable, meet the minimum design and performance requirements set forth in subpart B of this part 18 and, where necessary, the requirements of § 18.98.
( b ) The inspection of each machine shall be conducted by an electrical representative and such inspection shall include: ( 1 ) Examination of all electrical components for materials, workmanship, design, and construction;
( 2 ) Examination of all components of the machine which have been approved or certified under Bureau of Mines Schedule 2D, 2E, 2F, or 2G to determine whether such components have been maintained in permissible conditions;
( 3 ) Comparison of the location of components on the machine with the drawings or photographs submitted to determine that each of them is properly located, identified and marked;
( 4 ) Pressure testing of explosion-proof compartments, when necessary, shall be conducted in accordance with § 18.98; and: ( i ) Where the results of pressure testing are acceptable, the applicant shall be advised;
( ii ) Where the explosion-proof enclosure is found unacceptable, the applicant shall be so informed;
( iii ) If the performance of the explosion-proof enclosure is questionable, the qualified electrical representative may, at the request of the applicant, conduct a further detailed examination of the enclosure after disassembly and record his additional findings on MSHA Form No. 6-1481 under Results of Field Inspections.
[33 FR 4660, Mar. 19, 1968, as amended at 42 FR 8373, Feb. 10, 1977]
EXHIBIT 32.1

              CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63
          OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the annual report of Simclar, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Barry
J. Pardon, President of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for purpose of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that, to 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, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.

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

                                                     /s/ Barry J. Pardon
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                  Barry J. Pardon, President
                                                  Simclar, Inc.
                                                  March 30, 2004
First Variable Life Insurance Company
10 Post Office Square - 12th Floor
Boston, MA 02109


May 8, 1997

VIA EDGAR

Securities and Exchange Commission
Division of Investment Management
Office of Insurance Products
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC  20549


Re:   Variable Investors Series Trust
      File Nos.  33-11182 and 811-4969
___________________________________________________________


Dear Sir/Madam:

               On behalf of the  above  captioned  Registrant  and  pursuant  to
               Securities Act Rule 497(j), we hereby certify that the prospectus
               and  Statement  of  Additional  Information  that would have been
               filed under Rule 497(c)  does not differ from that  contained  in
               the Registrant's  Post-Effective  Amendment,  which Amendment has
               been filed electronically.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned.


Sincerely,


s/ Arnold R. Bergman
Arnold R. Bergman
Vice President - Legal & Administration
#### § 722.1 Scope.

The regulations of this part set forth general procedures governing issuance of orders of cessation, notices of violation, and orders to show cause under section 521 of the Act.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF 18 U.S.C.

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cardima, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gabriel B. Vegh, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to § 1350 of Chapter 63 of 18 U.S.C., as adopted pursuant to § 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/    GABRIEL B. VEGH                                   
|---------------------------------------------------------
|                                                         
|Gabriel B. Vegh Chief Executive
Officer November 14, 2003



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



This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 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 Company for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### § 77.704-4 Simultaneous repairs.

When two or more persons are working on an energized high-voltage surface line simultaneously, and any one of them is within reach of another, such persons shall not be allowed to work on different phases or on equipment with different potentials.
#### (A) Fred Simoncini, Appellant, v. Village of Red Hook et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent. (B) In the Matter of the Claim of Florence J. Furino, Appellant, v. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

[In each action] Permission to prosecute appeals as poor persons granted. Appeals may be perfected upon one typewritten copy of the records and five typewritten copies of the briefs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.
#### WALKER *vs.*WILKINSON.

[trespass against sheriff for taking personal property.]

1. *Who may maintain action.*— The owner of a chattel, having gratuitously loaned it to another, and reserved to himself the right to demand its restoration at any time, may maintain trespass against one who tortiously it from +ho possession of his bailee.

*726Appeal from the Circuit Court of Chambers.

Tried before the Hon. Robert Dougherty.

This action was brought by Benjamin Walker, against Henry L. Wilkinson, to recover damages for the tortious act of the defendant, as sheriff of said county, in seizing and selling a mule under execution against one E. 8. Meadows, who was the son-in-law of the plaintiff. The plaintiff' proved on the trial, as the bill oí exceptions shows, “that he loaned said mule to Meadows, to be worked in a wagon which Meadows was running, and to be used by him until called for by said plaintiff; that he called on a person who was then present, in the presence of said Meadows, to bear witness that the mule was only loaned to Meadows until plaintiff called for it, and that it was to be delivered up to him whenever he demanded or called for it; that no definite time was fixed, as to when plaintiff would call for it, or how long said Meadows should keep it; and that the loan was entirely gratuitous, nothing being paid or given by said Meadows to plaintiff for the use of said mule.” It further appeared that, when the defendant levied on the mule in the possession of Meadows, the plaintiff had never demanded it of the latter. The court charged the jury, that if they believed the evidence, they must find for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted to this charge, and took a nonsuit; and he now assigns the charge of the court as error, and moves to set aside the nonsuit.

Richards & Ealkner, for appellant.

Allison *&*Barnes, *contra.*

A. J. WALKER, O. J.

We understand the charge of the court in this ease to be predicated upon the idea, that the lender of a chattel cannot maintain trespass for the taking and carrying it away while in the possession of his bailee. The law unquestionably is, that when a chattel is loaned, the bailor having a right to resume possession at any time, and having the general property in the thing loaned, which draws to it .the constructive *727possession, may maintain trespass for the asportation of the property by a wrong-doer. — 1 Chitty on Plead. 169 ; Story on Bail. §§ 94, 279 ; 2 Saunders on PI. and Ev. 861; Thorp v. Burling, 11 Johns. 285; Davis v. Young, 20 Ala. 151 ; Nelson v. Bondurant, 26 Ala. 341; Hall v. Goodson, 32 Ala. 277. The ease of Davis v. Young, *supra,*asserts no principle adverse to the doctrine above stated. In that case, the plaintiff’s right of possession was postponed by the terms of his conveyance to a day posterior to the commission of the trespass; and it differs from this in the fact, that the plaintiff had no right of possession at the time of the trespass, and the possession was not held by another for him as his bailee.

Nonsuit set aside, judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
### SUBCHAPTER III—OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COORDINATOR FOR THE PREVENTION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROLIFERATION AND TERRORISM
#### WASCHKOWITZ, Appellant, v. SEITZ, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 27, 1905.)

Action by Hyman Waschkowitz against Harry Seitz. No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
### §6313. Mandatory response authority for freight data collection

(a) Freight Data Collection.—

(1) In general.—An owner, official, agent, person in charge, or assistant to the person in charge of a freight corporation, company, business, institution, establishment, or organization described in paragraph (2) shall be fined in accordance with subsection (b) if that individual neglects or refuses, when requested by the Director or other authorized officer, employee, or contractor of the Bureau to submit data under section 6302(b)(3)(B)—

(A) to answer completely and correctly to the best knowledge of that individual all questions relating to the corporation, company, business, institution, establishment, or other organization; or

(B) to make available records or statistics in the official custody of the individual.

(2) Description of entities.—A freight corporation, company, business, institution, establishment, or organization referred to in paragraph (1) is a corporation, company, business, institution, establishment, or organization that—

(A) receives Federal funds relating to the freight program; and

(B) has consented to be subject to a fine under this subsection on—

(i) refusal to supply any data requested; or

(ii) failure to respond to a written request.

(b) Fines.—

(1) In general.—Subject to paragraph (2), an individual described in subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $500.

(2) Willful actions.—If an individual willfully gives a false answer to a question described in subsection (a)(1), the individual shall be fined not more than $10,000.

(Added Pub. L. 112–141, div. E, title II, §52011(a), July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 895.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 2012, see section 3(a) of Pub. L. 112–141, set out as an Effective and Termination Dates of 2012 Amendment note under section 101 of Title 23, Highways.
#### § 883.608 Notice upon contract expiration.

The provisions of § 880.508 of this chapter apply, subject to the requirements of § 883.105.

[61 FR 13593, Mar. 27, 1996]
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9787 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the use of foreign 

feedstocks for purposes of the clean fuel production credit, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2024 

Mr. MANN (for himself, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. COMER, Ms. BUDZINSKI, and Mr. 

BACON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit 

the use of foreign feedstocks for purposes of the clean 

fuel production credit, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Farmer First Fuel 

5 Incentives Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 9787 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FOREIGN FEEDSTOCKS FOR 

2 CLEAN FUEL PRODUCTION CREDIT. 

3 (a) PROHIBITION ON FOREIGN FEEDSTOCKS.—Sec4 tion 45Z(f)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

5 is amended— 

6 (1) in clause (i)(II)(bb), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

7 the end, 

8 (2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the 

9 end and inserting ‘‘, and’’, and 

10 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

11 clause: 

12 ‘‘(iii) such fuel is derived from a feed13 stock which was produced or grown in the 

14 United States.’’. 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

16 this section shall apply to transportation fuel sold after 

17 December 31, 2024. 

18 SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF CLEAN FUEL PRODUCTION CREDIT. 

19 Section 45Z(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

20 is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2027’’ and insert21 ing ‘‘December 31, 2034’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### § 60.16 Recordkeeping requirements.

(a) Table 1 to this [paragraph (a)](/on/2024-09-16/title-30/section-60.16#p-60.16(a)) lists the records the mine operator shall retain and their retention period.

(1) Evaluation records made under [§ 60.12(c)](/on/2024-09-16/title-30/section-60.12#p-60.12(c)) shall be retained for at least 5 years from the date of each evaluation.

(2) Sampling records made under [§ 60.12(g)](/on/2024-09-16/title-30/section-60.12#p-60.12(g)) shall be retained for at least 5 years from the sample date.

(3) Corrective actions records made under [§ 60.13(c)](/on/2024-09-16/title-30/section-60.13#p-60.13(c)) shall be retained for at least 5 years from the date of each corrective action. These records must be stored with the records of related sampling under [§ 60.12(g)](/on/2024-09-16/title-30/section-60.12#p-60.12(g)).

(4) Written determination records received from a PLHCP under [§ 60.14(b)](/on/2024-09-16/title-30/section-60.14#p-60.14(b)) shall be retained for the duration of the miner's employment plus 6 months.

(5) Written medical opinion records received from a PLHCP or specialist under [§ 60.15(f)](/on/2024-09-16/title-30/section-60.15#p-60.15(f)) shall be retained for the duration of the miner's employment plus 6 months.

Table 1 to Paragraph (a)—Recordkeeping Requirements

| Record | Section references | Retention period |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. Evaluation records | § 60.12(c) | At least 5 years from date of each evaluation. |
| 2. Sampling records | § 60.12(g) | At least 5 years from sample date. |
| 3. Corrective actions records | § 60.13(c) | At least 5 years from date of each corrective action. |
| 4. Written determination records received from a PLHCP | § 60.14(b) | Duration of miner's employment plus 6 months. |
| 5. Written medical opinion records received from a PLHCP or specialist | § 60.15(f) | Duration of miner's employment plus 6 months. |

(b) Upon request from an authorized representative of the Secretary, from an authorized representative of miners, or from miners, mine operators shall promptly provide access to any record listed in this section.
§ 840.13 Enforcement authority. ( a ) The civil and criminal penalty provisions of each State program shall contain penalties which are no less stringent than those set forth in section 518 of the Act and shall be consistent with 30 CFR part 845.
( b ) The enforcement provisions of each State program shall contain sanctions which are no less stringent than those set forth in section 521 of the Act and shall be consistent with §§ 843.11, 843.12, 843.13, and subchapters G and J of this chapter.
( c ) The procedural requirements of each State program relating to the penalties and sanctions mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall be the same as or similar to those provided in sections 518 and 521 of the Act, respectively, and consistent with parts 843 and 845 and subchapters G and J of this chapter.
( d ) Nothing in the Act or this part shall be construed as eliminating any additional enforcement rights or procedures which are available under State law to a State regulatory authority, but which are not specifically enumerated in sections 518 and 521 of the Act.
[47 FR 35633, Aug. 16, 1982, as amended at 59 FR 54356, Oct. 28, 1994; 75 FR 60276, Sept. 29, 2010] Editorial Note
Editorial Note: For a document suspending § 840.13(a) in part, see 45 FR 51548, Aug. 4, 1980.