alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2021410EN.01019701.xml

| 18.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 410/197 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 410/197

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 57 of 18 February 2021
  )

On page 62, Annex V, point 3, first paragraph, after point (c):

for:

‘[...]

For the purpose of the implementation of this subparagraph, the following formulae shall apply:

| — | for (a) above: If Ci ≥ MFCi the Member State i receives MFCi |
| --- | --- |

—

for (a) above: If Ci ≥ MFCi the Member State i receives MFCi

i

i

i

| — | for (b) above: If Ci < MFCi the Member State i receives Ci |
| --- | --- |

—

for (b) above: If Ci < MFCi the Member State i receives Ci

i

i

i

where:

| — | i refers to the Member State concerned |
| --- | --- |

—

i refers to the Member State concerned

| — | MFC is the maximum financial contribution for the Member State concerned |
| --- | --- |

—

MFC is the maximum financial contribution for the Member State concerned

| — | C is the amount of the estimated total costs of the recovery and resilience plan’, |
| --- | --- |

—

C is the amount of the estimated total costs of the recovery and resilience plan’,

read:

‘[...]

For the purpose of the implementation of this paragraph, the following formulae shall apply:

| — | for (a) above: If Ci ≥ MFCi the Member State i receives MFCi |
| --- | --- |

—

for (a) above: If Ci ≥ MFCi the Member State i receives MFCi

i

i

i

| — | for (b) above: If Ci < MFCi the Member State i receives Ci |
| --- | --- |

—

for (b) above: If Ci < MFCi the Member State i receives Ci

i

i

i

where:

| — | i refers to the Member State concerned |
| --- | --- |

—

i refers to the Member State concerned

| — | MFC is the maximum financial contribution for the Member State concerned |
| --- | --- |

—

MFC is the maximum financial contribution for the Member State concerned

| — | C is the amount of the estimated total costs of the recovery and resilience plan.’. |
| --- | --- |

—

C is the amount of the estimated total costs of the recovery and resilience plan.’.

---
From: Robin Dunkins/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov

Cc: Peter Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Steve Fruh/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Teresa Clemons/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 12/15/2011 11:10 AM

Subject: Pulp and Paper

Attached is the clean version of the pulp and paper preamble and reg text.

(See attached file: E.O. 12866

PulpPaper-RTR-Proposal_2060_AQ41_12_15_11_900am (clean).doc)

Robin Dunkins

Leader, Natural Resources Group

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards US Environmental Protection Agency (C504-03)

(phone) 919-541-5335 (fax) 919-541- 3470

dunkins.robin@epa.gov
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-30381, 33-30382, 33-35363, 33-
41312, 33-63346, 33-63512, 33-79474, 33-79458, 333-09885 and 333-14347).



                                                         /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
                                                         -----------------------
                                                             Arthur Andersen LLP



San Jose, California
January 28, 1997
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2404 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2404

       To extend the duty suspension on o-tert-Butylcyclohexanol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 13, 2006

  Mr. DeMint introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To extend the duty suspension on o-tert-Butylcyclohexanol.

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

SECTION 1. O-TERT-BUTYLCYCLOHEXANOL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.05.02 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to o-tert-Butylcyclohexanol) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking the article description and inserting ``o-
        tert-Butylcyclohexanol (CAS No. 53860-35-8) (Cyclohexanol, 2-
        (1,1-dimethyl-) (provided for in subheading 2906.19.50)''; and
            (2) by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/
        2009''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply to 
goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 
the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### McQUADE v. MORROW et al.

(No. 6065.)

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 10, 1914.)

Licenses (§ 20*)—Occupations—Joueneyman Plumbee.

One making application lor'the reissue of an original certificate as a master plumber, who, at the time of such application, • was employed by a corporation at a salary in a shop furnished by it at the address stated in his application, will nevertheless be entitled to a reissuance if at the time he is exercising the duties of superintendence.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Licenses, Cent. Dig. § 55; Dec. Dig. § 20.*]

Appeal from Special Term, New York County.

Application' by Anthony McQuade for a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring James M. Morrow and others, as the Examining *519Board of Plumbers in the City of New York, to reissue and return to petitioner his certificate as master plumber. From an order denying the application, petitioner appeals.

Affirmed without prejudice to a new application.

Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, SCOTT, DOWLING, and HOTCHKISS, JJ.

Henry J. Smith, of New York City, for appellant.

William E. C. Mayer, of New York City, for respondents.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

HOTCHKISS, J.

The original certificate was issued in 1906. The application for a reissue was made in July, 1913. In this application, appellant states:

> “I am now actually engaged in the business of master or employing plumber and have an office or place of business located at 775 Seventh avenue.”

The application was refused on the ground that the appellant’s statement that he was a master or employing plumber was false. In truth, at the time of the application, defendant was employed by the New York Railways Company at a salary and in a shop furnished by it, at the address stated in the application. No license is required by a journeyman, but only by one “engaged in the business of master, or employing plumbers.” People ex rel. Nechamcus v. Warden, etc., 144 N. Y. 529, 537, 39 N. E. 686, 27 L. R. A. 718. There is nothing in this record, however, which shows that at the time of his application appellant was a master plumber within the above definition or otherwise. If it had appeared that appellant was acting as master rather than a journeyman, that he exercised powers and duties of superintendence, or that he had journeymen plumbers working under his direction, I do not think the mere fact that he himself was working as an employé of another, rather than independently, would have affected his right to a certificate, but this record is barren of any such evidence.

On this ground, the order should be affirmed, with $10 costs, and without prejudice to a new application on sufficient papers. All concur.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02

- 21

- 00086

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 371st District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1634646D

Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion



### C ARLOS 

### Z UNIGA



### , Appellant

V



### .

T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant has moved to di smiss his appeal. Because we have not yet decided

this case, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a),

43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: October 7 , 2021
#### § 35.5 Package.

*Package* means any container of any variety of vinifera species table grapes.

[41 FR 32877, Aug. 6, 1976]
MEMORANDUM

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161

FROM: Scott Christian, Environmental Engineer, OAR/OTAQ/CISD

SUBJECT: Meeting notes for cellulosic biofuel waiver credits discussion

DATE: November 30, 2009

Location: EPA offices

Attendees:

In person On phone

John Weihrauch, EPA David Korotney, EPA

Scott Christian, EPA Paul Argyropoulos, EPA

Pascal Dedjinou, EPA Jim Redding, Renewable Fuels Assn

Karl Simon, EPA

Samantha Slater, Renewable Fuels Assn

Loula Merkel, Coskata

Amy Ehlers, BIO

Chris Hessler, representing Iogen

We discussed the invitees comments that were provided to the docket on the cellulosic biofuel 

waiver credits provision.
| CERTIFICATION                  PURSUANT TO                     |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| 18                  U.S.C. SECTION 1350                        |
| AS                  ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                        |
| SECTION                  906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 |

| 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. |

| Date:                November 19, 2008                                                                        |   |   |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                                                                          |   |   |   |
| /s/                Robert Ellin                                                                               |   |   |   |
| Robert                Ellin, President and Chief Executive Officer Principal                Executive Officer |   |   |   |

----
**Exhibit32.2**

Certification ofPrincipal Financial OfficerPursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the “Report”) of ATS Corporation (the“Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Pamela A. Little, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, herebycertify that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Registrant.
| Date: November 8, 2007 |       | By:        | /s/ Pamela A. Little               |
|------------------------|------------|------------|------------------------------------|
|                   | ** ** | ** ** | **Pamela  A. Little**              |
|                   | ** ** | ** ** | **Chief  Financial Officer**       |
|                   | ** ** | ** ** | **(Principal  Financial Officer)** |

 

 

 

----
#### In the Matter of William Nicolay, Respondent, v. Port of New York Authority, Appellant. In the Matter of Ronald T. Calhoun, Respondent, v. Port of New York Authority, Appellant.

Judgments entered on November 22, 1968, in these article 78 proceedings, remitting the matter to respondent, the Port of New York Authority, for the purpose of reducing the punishment imposed, reversed, on the law, the Port Authority’s determination reinstated and petitions dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioners were found to have been engaged in conduct “ seriously prejudicial to the Port Authority ”. The Trial Board, which was designated to inquire into the charges, found that they, after being *“*ordered to leave [a cargo building of Port Newark] by a *620Port Authority Supervisor * * * removed two boxes, each containing a bicycle ”, While it is true that the Authority saw fit not to make a specific charge of theft against the petitioners, this fact does not in any way change the illegal character of their actions and the Authority should not be compelled to retain these petitioners in its employ. In view of the foregoing the penalty of dismissal was not an abuse of discretion (CPLR 7803, subd. 3). The matter of sanctions rests with the Authority except for abuse of discretion. The discipline imposed was not “'so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness ’ ”. *(Matter of McDermott*v. *Murphy,*15 A D 2d 479, affd. 12 N Y 2d 780.) Concur— Stevens, P. J., Capozzoli and Steuer, JJ.; Nunez and McNally, JJ., dissent in the following memorandum by McNally, J. I dissent and vote to modify the judgments to a suspension of two years. Petitioners were not charged with theft, attempted theft or any criminal conduct, but only with conduct seriously prejudicial to the Port Authority. The Trial Board sat through 3 full days of hearings and recommended a suspension of 60 days. It concluded that dismissal of petitioners would be harsh, considering that each had an unblemished record over long periods of time, Nicolay almost 13 years and Calhoun 8 years. The board recommended that petitioners be suspended for a period of 60 days and that thereafter they be transferred from Port Newark to another Port Authority facility. The executive director of the Authority, after reviewing the findings and recommendations, dismissed petitioners from the service. I believe the reduction by Special Term to 60 days is too substantial a revision under the facts in this record, and I vote to modify by reducing the measure of discipline imposed by respondent-appellant to a suspension of two years. (See *Matter of Bovino*v. *Scott,*22 N Y 2d 214; *Matter of Mitthauer*v. *Patterson,*8 N Y 2d 37.)
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, William Lieberman, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Fox Petroleum Inc. hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Fox Petroleum Inc. for the period ended May 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Fox Petroleum Inc.





Date: July 20, 2010





/s/   William LiebermanWilliam Lieberman



President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer, Treasurer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Fox Petroleum Inc. and will be retained by Fox Petroleum Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 4:90cr4051-WS

vs.

NATHANIEL JAMES,

Defendant.

 /

O R D E R

Defendant James filed a "Motion to Recall the Judgment of the Court Nunc Pro

Tunc Pursuant to Rule 60 Fed.Civ.P.," seeking relief from his judgment of conviction. 

Doc. 590. 

The court has previously determined that, unless and until the Eleventh Circuit

grants authorization for filing a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion,

Defendant is not entitled to relief under Rule 60 or otherwise. Docs. 578-580, 583, and

585 (incorporated herein by reference). 

Case 4:90-cr-04051-WS-GRJ Document 591 Filed 10/31/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:90cr4051-WS 

It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's motion to recall the judgment nunc pro

tunc (doc. 590) is DENIED. If Defendant files an appeal, leave to appeal in forma

pauperis and a certificate of appealability are DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED this October 31, 2005.

 /s William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD 

Senior United States District Judge

Case 4:90-cr-04051-WS-GRJ Document 591 Filed 10/31/05 Page 2 of 2
From: Kacenjar, Allen A. [ mailto:allen.kacenjar@squirepb.com ]

Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 9:30 PM

To: Greenberg, Alan (ENRD); 'Marks.Matthew@epa.gov'

Cc: McWilliams, Douglas A.

Subject: Taconite Settlement Documents

Alan and Matt

–

As discussed last week, with the few redactions indicated, ArcelorMittal is willing to release its CBI claims on the attached

presentation for the purpose of allowing its use to support the rulemaking efforts called for in our settlement.

As always, I’m happy to discuss any questions either you or EPA’s rulemaking team may have.

Best regards,

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the co rrect file and location. Allen A. Kacenjar

Partner

Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

4900 Key Tower

127 Public Square

Cleveland, Ohio 44114

T +1 216 479 8296

O +1 216 479 8500

F +1 216 479 8780

M +1 216 406 0072

allen.kacenjar@squirepb.com | squirepattonboggs.com



### ------------------ ------------------ ----------------- ----------------

44 Offices in 21 Countries

This message is confidential and may be legally privileged or otherwise protec ted from disclosure. If you are not the

intended recipient, please te lephone or email the sender and delete this me ssage and any attachment from your system;

you must not copy or disclose the co ntents of this message or any attachment to any other person.

Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP is part of the intern ational legal practice Squire Patton Boggs, which operates

worldwide through a number of sepa rate legal entities. Please visit www.squirepattonboggs.com for more information.

#US

------------------ ------------------ ----------------- ----------------
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO




18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350




AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO





SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Report of Silver Pearl Enterprises, Inc. on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities
and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of his 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 results of operation of the Company.





/s/
      DENISE D. SMITH
              Denise
      D. Smith
              Sole
      Member of the Board of Directors
              Dated:
      May 4, 2009
              
              
              /s/
      DENISE D. SMITH
              Denise
      D. Smith
              Chief
      Executive Officer
              Dated:
      May 4, 2009
              
              
              /s/
      DENISE D. SMITH
              Denise
      D. Smith
              Chief
      Financial Officer
              Dated:
      May 4, 2009
              
              
              /s/
      DENISE D. SMITH
              Denise
      D. Smith
              Principal
      Accounting Officer
              Dated:
      May 4, 2009
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2272 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the deduction 

for host families of foreign exchange and other students from $50 per 

month to $200 per month. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 10 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 9), 2006 

Mr. COLEMAN (for himself and Mr. JOHNSON) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the deduction for host families of foreign exchange and 

other students from $50 per month to $200 per month. 

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 ‘‘Youth Exchange Sup5 port Act of 2006’’. 
2 

•S 2272 IS

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR 

2 AMOUNTS PAID TO MAINTAIN CERTAIN STU3 DENTS AS MEMBERS OF TAXPAYER’S HOUSE4 HOLD. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) of section 

6 170(g)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 

7 to amounts paid to maintain certain students as members 

8 of taxpayer’s household) is amended by striking ‘‘$50’’ 

9 and inserting ‘‘$200’’. 

10 (b) ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION.—Section 170(g) 

11 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the fol12 lowing new paragraph: 

13 ‘‘(5) ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION.— 

14 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any 

15 taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 

16 2006, the $200 amount contained in paragraph 

17 (2)(A) shall be increased by an amount equal 

18 to— 

19 ‘‘(i) $200, multiplied by 

20 ‘‘(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment de21 termined under section 1(f)(3) for the cal22 endar year in which the taxable year be23 gins by substituting ‘calendar year 2005’ 

24 for ‘calendar year 1992’ in subparagraph 

25 (B) thereof. 
3 

•S 2272 IS

1 ‘‘(B) ROUNDING.—If any increase deter2 mined under paragraph (1) is not a multiple of 

3 $10, such increase shall be rounded to the next 

4 highest multiple of $10.’’. 

5 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

6 this Act shall apply to taxable years beginning after De7 cember 31, 2005. 

Æ