alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70363-70364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28862]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

United States Mint


Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee; Meeting

ACTION: Notification of Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee November 
19, 2010 Public Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to United States Code, Title 31, section 
5135(b)(8)(C), the United States Mint announces the Citizens Coinage 
Advisory Committee (CCAC) public meeting scheduled for November 19, 
2010.
    Date: November 19, 2010.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 12 p.m.
    Location: 8th Floor Board Room, United States Mint, 801 9th Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20220.
    Subject: Review and discuss reverse candidate designs for the 2011 
American Eagle Platinum Coin program, reverse candidate designs for the 
2011 First Spouse Coins and Medals honoring Eliza Johnson and Lucy 
Hayes, and the proposed theme for the 2012 Native American $1 Coin 
Reverse.

[[Page 70364]]

    Interested persons should call 202-354-7502 for the latest update 
on meeting time and room location.
    In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 5135, the CCAC:
    [dec221] Advises the Secretary of the Treasury on any theme or 
design proposals relating to circulating coinage, bullion coinage, 
Congressional Gold Medals, and national and other medals.
    [dec221] Advises the Secretary of the Treasury with regard to the 
events, persons, or places to be commemorated by the issuance of 
commemorative coins in each of the five calendar years succeeding the 
year in which a commemorative coin designation is made.
    [dec221] Makes recommendations with respect to the mintage level 
for any commemorative coin recommended.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cliff Northup, United States Mint 
Liaison to the CCAC; 801 9th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220; or call 
202-354-7200.
    Any member of the public interested in submitting matters for the 
CCAC's consideration is invited to submit them by fax to the following 
number: 202-756-6830.

    Authority:  31 U.S.C. 5135(b)(8)(C).

    Dated: November 10, 2010.
Edmund C. Moy,
Director, United States Mint.
[FR Doc. 2010-28862 Filed 11-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
(Adopted: 03/02/79; Rescinded: mm/dd/yy) 

AVAQMD Rule 1119 1119-1 

Petroleum Coke Calcining Operations - Oxides Of Sulfur 

D1, 11/17/2010 

RULE 1119

Petroleum Coke Calcining Operations - Oxides Of Sulfur

(a) A person shall not operate petroleum coke calcining equipment unless the uncontrolled 

emissions of oxides of sulfur from such basic equipment, expressed as sulfur dioxide (SO2), are 

reduced by at least 80 percent.

(b) Any equipment owner or operator subject to the provisions of section (a) of this rule shall 

comply with the following schedule of increments of progress:

(1) By December 1, 1980, submit to the Executive Officer an application for Permit to 

Construct describing at a minimum the steps that will be taken to achieve compliance 

with this rule.

(2) By June 1, 1981, award the contract for an emission control system, or issue purchase 

orders for the component parts to accomplish emission control.

(3) By September 1, 1981, initiate on-site construction or installation of equipment to 

reduce or control emissions.

(4) By May 1, 1983, complete on-site construction or installation of equipment to reduce or 

control emissions.

(5) By July 1, 1983, assure final compliance with the provisions of this rule.

[SIP: Approved 9/28/81, 46 FR 47451, 40 CFR 52.220(c)(88)(iii)(A)]
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 of Stratos Renewables
Corporation (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





Date:
      May 20, 2009/s/
      Julio AlonsoJulio
      Alonso, Chief Financial
Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Stratos Renewables
Corporation and will be retained by Stratos Renewables Corporation. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Fw: EGU MATS -- Suggestion for BTF 

 RobertJ Wayland 

 to: Bill Maxwell 

 11/16/2012 10:13 AM 

 

Here's the last change. 

----- Forwarded by RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US on 11/16/2012 10:13 AM 

----- 

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 11/16/2012 10:12 AM 

Subject: EGU MATS -- Suggestion for BTF 

Hi Bob, 

Here’s the suggested change to help clarify the text regarding the beyond 

the floor analysis: 

 

Move the following text from page 24 of the most recent redline as a 

footnote to the sentence “The Agency derived these limits by first 

calculating the floor standards and then assessing whether a more 

stringent beyond-the-floor standard is appropriate” on page 16 of the 

redline: 

CAA section 112(d)(2) requires the EPA to consider whether more stringent 

beyond-the-floor standards should be established 

 

Alternatively, for brevity, the footnote could read “as required by CAA 

section 112(d)(2)” 

 

 

Thanks, 

Cortney 

________________________________________________ 

Cortney Higgins 

Policy Analyst 

OMB/OIRA/NRE 

202.395.7856 

chiggins@omb.eop.gov
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 6356

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JUSTIN DEONTA STROM, a/k/a Jae Dee, a/k/a Jae, a/k/a J

- Dirt , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1:12

- cr - 00159

- LMB

- 1; 1:23

- cv - 00342 )

Submitted : August 29 , 2023 Decided: September 1, 2023

Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Justin Deonta Strom, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6356 Doc: 5 Filed: 09/01/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Justin Deonta Strom appeals the district court’s order construing his February 26, 2023, postjudgment filing as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and dismissing it without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. ∗ Our review of the record c onfirms that the district court properly construed Strom’s filing as a successive § 2255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction because Strom failed to obtain prefiling authorization from this
court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h); McRae , 793 F .3d at 397

- 400. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Strom , No. 1:12

- cr 00159

- LMB

- 1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 15, 2023). Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Stro m’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Strom’s claims do not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). We therefore deny authorization to file a su ccessive § 2255 motion. 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.
AFFIRMED

∗ A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s jurisdictional categorization of a postjudgment filing as an unauthorized, successive § 2255 motion. United States v. McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015). USCA4 Appeal: 23-6356 Doc: 5 Filed: 09/01/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1835 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1835

To provide that service of the members of the organization known as the 
United States Cadet Nurse Corps during World War II constituted active 
military service for purposes of laws administered by the Secretary of 
                           Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 6, 2013

 Mrs. Lowey (for herself, Mrs. Capps, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Courtney, Mr. 
  Connolly, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Lance, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Polis, and Mr. 
   Schiff) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
  Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide that service of the members of the organization known as the 
United States Cadet Nurse Corps during World War II constituted active 
military service for purposes of laws administered by the Secretary of 
                           Veterans Affairs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``United States Cadet Nurse Corps 
Equity Act''.

SEC. 2. SERVICE DEEMED TO BE ACTIVE MILITARY SERVICE.

    (a) In General.--For purposes of section 401(a)(1)(A) of the GI 
Bill Improvement Act of 1977 (38 U.S.C. 106 note), the Secretary of 
Defense is deemed to have determined that qualified service of a person 
constituted active military service.
    (b) Determination of Discharge Status.--The Secretary of Defense 
shall issue an honorable discharge under section 401(a)(1)(B) of the GI 
Bill Improvement Act of 1977 to each person whose qualified service 
warrants an honorable discharge. Such discharge shall be issued before 
the end of the one-year period beginning on the date of the enactment 
of this Act.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF RETROACTIVE BENEFITS.

    No benefits may be paid to any person as a result of the enactment 
of this Act for any period before the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

SEC. 4. DEFINITION.

    For purposes of this Act, the term ``qualified service'' means 
service of a person as a member of the organization known as the United 
States Cadet Nurse Corps during the period beginning on July 1, 1943, 
and ending on December 15, 1945.
                                 <all>
```
, . 

GrRILD c. M**” 

.,10.1=. .‘“.“.‘ 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Hon. T. 0. Walton, Pr44ld4nt 

Agrloaltural end Yaobanioal Collsge 

Colleg4 Station, Texan 

Dear Sir: 

April 3, 1939 

. 

dO4&%0 OUR OnOX%, ad 18 OOB8id8r4d a8 8004pb 

ipS it8 bur64n8 4Bd Oblifi8tiOn8 With ita b4U4- 

fit8. He thereby 8ubjoetr him84lt to all oon8titUtiOILd and legi818ttV4 prOVi8iOB8 r418tiBg 
Hon. T. 0. Kelton, April 5, 1939, Page Z 

thereto an4 undertakes to perform all the 

duties or the 0rrio4, an4 while he muLaIn 

in auoh offloe the pub110 has tho rlcght to 

demand that he perform such dutia8.* 

Amone the dutIe8 of a Notary Publlo, I8 the 

duty of taking aoknOwled&ments of the pub110 Generally. 

If he aoospts his appointment et the hand of the Corernor and holds himself out as a Notary Pubblo he aaospts 

the duties imposed Upon hI.m by virtue of the offloe he 

holds. Ha ha8 not only the duty of taking l oknowleddmate, but he has the duty of refusing to take aoknowledpents under given oondItIon8 whloh, by their nature, 

oonstltutes good oause. Them appear no raots In your 

Inquiry which would oonmtltute good oau8e for refusal 

to aot. 

It Is, thersrore, the opInIon of this Deprtment and you are 80 adricred t&t the Not8rie8 Pub110 rho 

4~4 employ4d by the A@oultural and ~obanioal College 

or Texes oannot legally mrU84 to do.nOt8ry WO* ror the 

pub110 generally during 0rri04 bour8. Them 18, howover, 

no duty lmposad upon a Eotary, or any otber'publlo offoial, to 4X4OUt4 a partiOUbr duty at 8ny giv4B mOSi4Bt. 

84 lay 4X4OUt4 that dUt7 at 8UOb m88Onable tb4 88 18 

oonslatent rlth the other dUti48 imposed upon him by 

reason of his partloular ~ployment. 

Trusting that th18 satId8otorIly an8w8r8 your 

Inquiry , we are 

\ 

LloyQ ~Armstron~ 

AS8i8taBt 

LA:AW 

APPROVED: 

Al-TO= GENERAL OF TKXAS
**Exhibit32.1**

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

In connection with theaccompanying report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 of GlobalPartners LP (the “Partnership”) and filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Eric Slifka, President andChief Executive Officer of Global GP LLC, the general partner of thePartnership, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.               theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.               theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.
| Dated: August 9, 2007 | By:    | /s/    | Eric Slifka                            |   |   |   |   |   |
|-----------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
|                  |   |   | Eric Slifka                            |   |   |   |   |   |
|                  |   |   | President and  Chief Executive Officer |   |   |   |   |   |
|                  |   |   | of Global GP  LLC, general partner     |   |   |   |   |   |
|                  |   |   | of Global  Partners LP                 |   |   |   |   |   |

 

----
§ 1738.103 Substantially Underserved Trust Areas (SUTA). Applicants seeking assistance may request consideration under the SUTA provisions in 7 U.S.C. 936f. ( a ) If the Administrator determines that a community within “trust land” (as defined in 38 U.S.C. 3765) has a high need for the benefits of the Rural Broadband Program, he/she may designate the community as a “substantially underserved trust area” (as defined in section 306F of the RE Act).
( b ) To receive consideration under SUTA, the Applicant must submit to the Agency a completed application that includes all of the information requested in 7 CFR part 1700, subpart D. In addition, the Applicant must notify the Agency in writing that it seeks consideration under SUTA and identify the discretionary authorities of 7 CFR part 1700, subpart D, it seeks to have applied to its application. Note, however, that the two years of historical audited financial statements and Net worth requirement for loan and loan/grant combination Applicants in § 1738.206(b)(2)(i) cannot be waived.
**Exhibit32.1**

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

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer andChairman of the Board of Gladstone Investment Corporation (the “Company”), herebycertifies on the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350(a), as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (“Form 10-Q”), filedconcurrently herewith by the Company, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company.

Dated: August 2, 2006

/s/ David Gladstone                                                                                             David GladstoneChief Executive Officer andChairman of the Board of Directors

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 69063]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28329]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR10-29-003]


Enbridge Pipelines (North Texas) L.P.; Notice of Baseline Filing

November 4, 2010.
    Take notice that on November 3, 2010, Enbridge Pipelines (North 
Texas) L.P. submitted a revised baseline filing of its Statement of 
Operating Conditions for services provided under section 311 of the 
Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA).
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must 
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered 
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, 
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any 
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or 
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests 
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing 
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the 
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the 
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or 
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5b1d1e091814353732353e082e2b2b34292f1b3d3e2938753c342d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="03454651404c6d6f6a6d66507673736c717743656671602d646c75">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 15, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28329 Filed 11-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Ruben Berrios, Plaintiff, v Wheels, Inc., et al., Respondents, and Frank M. Carbonaro, Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 6, 1979, granting defendant Carbonaro’s motion for reargument but adhering to its original decision as contained in the order entered March 9, 1979 granting the motion by United States Surgical Corp. (Surgical) for leave to serve an amended answer to deny paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the complaint that the vehicle involved in the accident was being operated by the defendant Carbonaro with the permission and consent of Surgical and that Carbonaro was acting within the scope and in the course of his employment with Surgical, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and without prejudice to the following: (1) An appropriate motion made at Special Term to strike the cross claim interposed in the amended answer by Surgical against Carbonaro as beyond the authority for which leave was sought; (2) An appropriate motion by Carbonaro for leave to interpose a cross claim against Surgical for indemnity for the alleged breach of the agreement with Surgical through its officer and general counsel, Fischer, to protect Carbonaro in return for his co-operation; (3) Reserving to the trial court any rulings with respect to the propriety of the meeting between Carbonaro and the private attorneys for Surgical and the admissibility of any information disclosed thereat. The appeal from the order of March 9, 1979 is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as subsumed in the appeal from the order of August 6, 1979. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Birns, Markewich and Yesawich, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v Ralph H. Perry, Defendant.

for writ of habeas corpus denied. Mahoney,P. J., Sweeney, Staley, Jr., Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp. (the “Registrant”) for the period endedSeptember 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof, I, Lynn A. Peterson, Chief Executive Officer of theRegistrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
| Date:  | November 8, 2007               |
|--------|--------------------------------|
|   |                           |
| By:    | /s/ Lynn A. Peterson      |   |
|   | Lynn A Peterson                |
|   | Chief Executive Officer        |
|   | (principal executive  officer) |

 

----
M. P. No. 80-75.

#### Bristol and Warren Gas Company v. Edward F. Burke, Chairman *et al.*

Mr. Chief Justice Bevilacqua and Mr. Justice Kelleher are *918of the opinion that the stay should be denied.

*917The petitioner’s motion for stay of the decision and order of the Public Utilities Commission pending review is granted.

*918
      *Coffey, McGovern, Noel é- Novogroski, John G. Coffey, Jr., W. Kenneth O’Donnell,*for petitioner, *Dennis J. Roberts II,*Attorney General, *John R. McDermott,*Special Assistant Attorney General, *John A. Notte III,*for respondents.