alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Low Level Radioactive Waste Volume Reduction Project

SLBM Launcher/SSBN Elimination

Strategic Offensive Arms Elimination In Russia

The Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program is designed to assist the countries of

the former Soviet Union to destroy nuclear, chemical, and other weapons of mass

destruction (WMD). The program also helps to transport, store and safeguard weapons

in connection with their destruction, and establish verifiable safeguards against the

proliferation of those weapons. Originally sponsored by Senators Sam Nunn (D-GA) and

Richard Lugar (R-IN) as an amendment to the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe

Treaty Implementation Act, the CTR Program also came to be known as the Nunn-Lugar

Program. Congress initially established the CTR Program in December 1991 as the

"Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction Act."

SLBM Launcher/SSBN Elimination

One aspect of the program includes providing equipment and services to help eliminate

136 submarine ballistic missile launchers on Russian ballistic missile submarines (SSBN).

Dismantlement of SSBNs produces low level radioactive solid and liquid waste (LLRW).

To reduce the volume of this waste, LLRW Volume Reduction Facilities process,

decontaminate and clean solids and liquids this waste. Lockheed Martin Advanced

Environmental Systems, Inc. (now EnergoTech LLC), was awarded the contract to

construct two facilities in the Russian Federation on Aug. 3, 1998. The first facility was

constructed at Zvezdochka, near Arkangelsk, Russia, and turned over to the federation

government on Oct. 18, 2000. The second facility, constructed at the Zvezda Far East

Shipyard near Vladivostok, was commissioned and turned over to the Russian Federation

on Aug. 2, 2001.

Zvezdochka Engineering Enterprise

The CTR Program funded the construction of a LLRW volume reduction facility at the

Zvezdochka Engineering Enterprise Shipyard at Severodvinsk. The work at Zvezdochka

provided a solid waste treatment facility, including decontamination equipment and a

low force compactor, a liquid waste treatment system utilizing sorbant technology, and a

laundry water treatment system. The facility design and construction costs were

approximately $16 million.

Zvezda Far East Shipyard

The CTR Program funded the construction of LLRW volume reduction facilities at the

Zvezda Far Eastern Shipyard at Bolshoi Kamen. This work at Zvezda provided a solid

waste treatment facility, laundry water treatment system, and a solid waste storage

facility. Low level liquid waste at Zvezda Shipyard is processed on a barge provided by

the Japanese Government. Design and construction costs at Zvezda were approximately

$23 million.

DTRA deters the use of weapons of mass destruction, reduces the present threat to the

United States and its friends, and prepares for future threats. This Department of

Defense combat support agency is located in the Washington, D.C., area and operates

field offices worldwide.

As of January 2002

Back to News & Information Fact Sheets

1 of 1 05/26/15 12:52 PM
37.115 Uncompensated overtime.

37.115-1 Scope.

37.115-2 General policy.

37.115-3 Solicitation provision.

Parent topic: Subpart 37.1 - Service Contracts-General
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Von Hampton, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Tels
Corporation;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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
quarterly report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
aspects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this quarterly report.

         4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for
the registrant and have:

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

                  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures; and presented in this report as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation our 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

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

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

                  a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant'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 registrant's
internal control over financial reporting.




Date: July 16, 2004

/s/ Von Hampton
 ------------------------------------
Von Hampton.  President, Chief Executive Officer
Tels Corporation
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7030-7031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3015]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-70,827]

Formtech Industries, LLC, Minerva Division; Minerva, OH; Notice 
of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated December 22, 2009, the United Steel Workers 
requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination 
regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance 
(TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The 
determination was issued on November 5, 2009. The Notice of 
Determination will soon be published in the Federal Register.
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
based on the finding that imports of steel forgings did not contribute 
importantly to worker separations at the subject firm and no shift of 
production to a foreign source occurred.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided 
additional information regarding customers of the subject firm and 
imports of steel forgings and like or directly competitive products.
    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration and the existing record and has determined that the 
Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the 
workers meet the

[[Page 7031]]

eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. 
Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, 
granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of January 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-3015 Filed 2-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
```
Page 1 of 3

Cases No. 4:99cr38-RH and 4:10cv257-RH/CAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASES NO. 4:99cr38-RH

 4:10cv257-RH/CAS

LATITUS D. SMITH,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING THE § 2255 MOTION

The defendant has moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for relief from his 

judgment of conviction and sentence. The motion is before the court on the 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, ECF No. 77. No objections have 

been filed. This order accepts the report and recommendation and denies the 

§ 2255 motion.

A defendant may appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion only if the district 

court or court of appeals issues a certificate of appealability. Under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has 

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 
Page 2 of 3

Cases No. 4:99cr38-RH and 4:10cv257-RH/CAS

(2000); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983); see also Williams v. 

Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-13, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 146 L. Ed. 2d 389 (2000) (setting 

out the standards applicable to a § 2254 petition on the merits). As the Court said 

in Slack:

To obtain a COA under § 2253(c), a habeas prisoner must make 

a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a 

demonstration that, under Barefoot, includes showing that reasonable 

jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the 

petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the 

issues presented were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 

further.” 

Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84 (quoting Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 n.4). Further, in 

order to obtain a certificate of appealability when dismissal is based on procedural 

grounds, a petitioner must show, “at least, that jurists of reason would find it 

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court 

was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. 

The defendant has not made the required showing. This order thus denies a 

certificate of appealability. Because the defendant has not obtained—and is not 

entitled to—a certificate of appealability, any appeal by the defendant will not be 

taken in good faith. I certify under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a) that 

any appeal will not be taken in good faith and that the defendant is not otherwise 

entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Accordingly,
Page 3 of 3

Cases No. 4:99cr38-RH and 4:10cv257-RH/CAS

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The clerk must enter a judgment stating, “The defendant’s motion for 

relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED.

2. The defendant’s application for a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

3. Leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

SO ORDERED on June 14, 2013.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MICHAEL A. PEAVY,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5732/LAC/EMT

CORPORATION OF THE UNITED

OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on June 7,

2021 (ECF No. 24). The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title

28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined it

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

24) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b)(1).

3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with

Case 3:20-cv-05732-LC-EMT Document 28 Filed 08/25/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

this order and close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of August, 2021.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 3:20cv5732/LAC/EMT

Case 3:20-cv-05732-LC-EMT Document 28 Filed 08/25/21 Page 2 of 2
**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 Annual Report of EMTA Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the
      capacities and on the date 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 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.


Date:
              August 14, 2007By:
            /s/
                Edmond, L. LonerganName:Edmond
                L. LonerganTitle:       
                Chief
                Executive Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
      document authentications, 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 EMTA Holdings, Inc.
      and will be retained by EMTA Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
PUBLIC LAW 107–290—NOV. 7, 2002 116 STAT. 2051

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5205:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):

Oct. 10, considered and passed House.

Oct. 17, considered and passed Seante.

Æ

Public Law 107–290

107th Congress

An Act

To amend the District of Columbia Retirement Protection Act of 1997 to permit

the Secretary of the Treasury to use estimated amounts in determining the

service longevity component of the Federal benefit payment required to be paid

under such Act to certain retirees of the Metropolitan Police Department of

the District of Columbia.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMITTING USE OF ESTIMATED AMOUNTS IN DETERMINING SERVICE LONGEVITY COMPONENT OF FEDERAL

BENEFIT PAYMENTS TO METROPOLITAN POLICE

DEPARTMENT RETIREES.

Section 11012(e) of the District of Columbia Retirement Protection Act of 1997 (Public Law 105–33; sec. 1–803.02(e), D.C. Official

Code) is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The Secretary

of the Treasury is authorized to estimate the additional compensation for service longevity for purposes of determining the amount

of a Federal benefit payment for annuitants who retire on or after

August 29, 1972, and on or before December 31, 2001, and to

make Federal benefit payments based upon such estimates.’’.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendment made by section 1 shall take effect as if

included in the enactment of title IX of division A of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001 (as enacted by reference in section

1(a)(4) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001).

Approved November 7, 2002.

Nov. 7, 2002

[H.R. 5205]
Case 2:10-cr-0002%JAN Document 1 Filed 01/08/2014) Page 1 of 1

PROB 22 DOCKET NUMBER (Tran. Court)

(Rev. 2/88) 1:96CR38-002
TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION

NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROBATIONER/SUPERVISED RELEASEE: DISTRICT DIVISION

Henry Rayford Florida Northem Gainesville

NAME OF SENTENCING JUDGE,

Maurice M. Paul
Senior United States District Judge

DATES OF PROBATION/SUPERVISED | FROM

RELEASE: 12/14/2005

3/2010

OFFENSE:

Ct. 1) Conspiracy to Possess With Intent to Distribute Crack Cocaine and marijuana.
Ct. 4) Use and Carry a Firearm During and in Relation to a Drug Trafficking Crime.

PART 1 - ORDER TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3605 the jurisdiction of the probationer or supervised
releasee named above be transferred with the records of the Court to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California upon that Court’s order of acceptance of jurisdiction. This Court hereby expressly consents that the
period of probation or supervised release may be changed by the District Court to which this transfer is made without
further inquiry of this Court.*

Yooubu 20, 2009 yD aecsive v7 (Bae

Date Maurice M, Paul
Senior United States District Judge

*This sentence may be deleted in the discretion of the transferring Court.

PART 2 - ORDER ACCEPTING JURISDICTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Central District of California

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that jurisdiction over the above-named supervised releasee be accepted and
assumed by this Court from and after the entry of this order.

Lf k {soo prs

Effective Date CHIEF United States District Judge

thereby attest and certify on _/, ce. lo
that the foregoing documentis

‘and correct copy of the ori
my ee Say oF the orginal on tio

CLERK US. DI:
CENTI DI ings Court

401157 10lsDeFIntatt 1%
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cesar Ortega, Appellant.

Submitted August 13, 2007;

decided September 6, 2007

Reported below, 40 AD3d 394.

*895Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
#### § 4284.5 [Reserved]
---

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Paul C. Kirkitelos, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Doral Energy Corp. (the Company), hereby certify 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 my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company, for the
      fiscal year ended July 31, 2008, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                 



| | By:    | /s/
      Paul C. Kirkitelos
| | ------ | ----------------------------
| |        |                             
| | Name:  | PAUL C. KIRKITELOS          
| |        |                             
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and 
| |        | Chief Financial Officer     
| |        |                             
| | Date:  | October 29, 2008            



A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
#### Clarence Gomillon, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent.

—■ Motion for permission to proceed as a poor person denied, without costs and without prejudice to its renewal on notice to all interested parties (-CPLR 1101, subd. [e]). Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur.
#### § 52.3183b Count-sizes of whole unpitted dried prunes.

(a) *Count-sizes.* Except for U.S. Grade A or U.S. Fancy, the count-sizes of dried prunes are not incorporated in the grades of dried prunes. The count-sizes of dried prunes in this subpart refer to the count (or number) of prunes per pound of dried prunes. The various sizes of dried prunes for the respective varietal types are commonly designated as follows, but may be designated by other numerical expressions:

(1) *Type I; Type IV.* 30/40, 40/50, 50/60, 60/70, 70/80, 80/90, 90/100, 100/120, 120 and over.

(2) *Type II.* 25/35, 35/45, 30/40, 40/50, 50/60, 60/70, 70/80, 80/90, 90/100.

(3) *Type III.* 15/20, 18/24, 20/30, 30/40, 40/50, 50/60, 60/70.

(b) *Recommended size nomenclature.* The following size nomenclature is recommended for the respective “countsizes” of dried prunes:

| Extra large | Average: Not more than 43 prunes per pound. |
| --- | --- |
| Large | Average: Not more than 53 prunes per pound. |
| Medium | Average: Not more than 67 prunes per pound. |
| Small | Average: Not more than 85 prunes per pound. |

[21 FR 8177, Oct. 25, 1956. Redesignated at 30 FR 11596, Sept. 10, 1965, and further redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977 and 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981]
----

|   | (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 Registrant. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  /s/ Richard W. McCullough   |   | August 14, 2009 |
|-----------------------------------|--------|-----------------|
| Richard W. McCullough             |   |
| Chief Executive Officer           |   |
| Petroleum Development Corporation |   |
| Managing General Partner          |   |
|                              |   |
|                              |   |
|  /s/ Gysle R. Shellum        |   | August 14, 2009 |
| Gysle R. Shellum                  |   |
| Chief Financial Officer           |   |
| Petroleum Development Corporation |   |
| Managing General Partner          |   |
|                              |   |

----