alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases…Ambassador Fick’s Travel to Costa Rica

# 											Ambassador Fick’s Travel to Costa Rica									

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

April 9, 2024

U.S. Ambassador at Large for the Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy Nathaniel C. Fick will travel to San Jose, Costa Rica April 9-12. Ambassador Fick will attend the Regional 5G Workshop, a two-day event to share best practices in trusted technology, supply chains, and secure telecommunications.

Ambassador Fick will speak about technology ecosystem security. He will also participate in bilateral meetings with Costa Rican government officials, including President Rodrigo Chaves, and with technology leaders from participating countries.

5G, the fifth generation of wireless technology, is paving the way for new capabilities, including supporting connectivity for applications like smart cities, autonomous vehicles, remote healthcare, and other mutual priority areas. With increased connectivity comes increased risks and the Regional 5G Workshop is an opportunity to reinforce regional cooperation, and for participants to learn about financing, partnership, and development opportunities. For further information, please contact CDP-Press@state.gov.

Tags

Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital PolicyBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsCosta RicaCyber IssuesOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial International Travel

Back to Top
#### § 19.140 How do I know if a person is excluded?

Check the *Excluded Parties List System (EPLS)* to determine whether a person is excluded. The General Services Administration (GSA) maintains the *EPLS* and makes it available, as detailed in subpart E of this part. When a Federal agency takes an action to exclude a person under the nonprocurement or procurement debarment and suspension system, the agency enters the information about the excluded person into the *EPLS.*
114 STAT. 1676 PUBLIC LAW 106–401—OCT. 30, 2000

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 120:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

Oct. 30, considered and passed House and Senate.

Æ

Public Law 106–401

106th Congress

Joint Resolution

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and for other

purposes.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law

106–275, is further amended by striking the date specified in section

106(c) and inserting ‘‘October 31, 2000’’.

Approved October 30, 2000.

Ante, pp. 810,

866, 1073, 1318,

1397, 1398, 1450,

1550, 1551.

Oct. 30, 2000

[H.J. Res. 120]
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 Quarterly  Report of NELX,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended February 29, 2004 (the "Report") filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission,  I, John M. Jacobs, Chief Executive Officer
and Principal Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

     (1)  The Company's  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.



         April 14, 2004                         /s/ John M. Jacobs
                                                    --------------------------
                                                    John M. Jacobs
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                                    Principal Financial Officer
# C_2020354EN.01000901.xml

| 23.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/9

---

Corrigendum to Commission Decision of 25 February 2020 on the asset management guidelines of the common provisioning fund

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 131 of 22 April 2020
  )

(2020/C 354/06)

On the cover page and on page 3, in the title of the Decision:

for:

‘Commission Decision of 25 February 2020’,

read:

‘Commission Decision of 25 March 2020’;

on page 11, in the concluding formula:

for:

‘Done at Brussels, 25 February 2020.’,

read:

‘Done at Brussels, 25 March 2020.’.

---
#### Werking et al. *v.*Snyder et al.

[No. 19,907.

Filed November 16, 1964.]

*David E. Hayes,*of New Castle, for appellants.

*Thomas B. Millikin,*of New Castle, *Robert D. Riseh, Robert D. McCord, Donald R. Metz*and *Ice, Miller, Donadio & Ryan,*of counsel, all of Indianapolis, for appellees.

Kelley, J.

In this action appellants, by complaint, seek a declaratory judgment “of rights under Section 28-6106 of Burns’ Indiana Statutes”. The crux of the matter appears to be whether certain of the 489 signers of a petition requesting the Henry County School Reorganization Committee to include the east portion of Liberty Township in the reorganization plan of the adjoining Wayne County, Indiana, were entitled to withdraw their names from said petition after the same was *404filed with said committee and whether the latter were “entitled” to strike the names of the withdrawers from the petition.

Upon the issues, duly made, the court found and rendered judgment against appellants that they were not entitled to the relief prayed for and that they take nothing by their complaint.

Appellants apparently moved for a new trial upon the sole ground “that the verdict or decision is contrary to law”, which motion was overruled by the court.

It appears from the record that the evidence at the trial by the court consisted of a “written stipulation of facts filed herein by the parties” and six (6) exhibits attached thereto. None of the exhibits are set forth, verbatim or in substance, in appellants’ brief. However, it seems immaterial since a consideration of the new trial specification requires a consideration of the evidence and such evidence is not presented in the record by a bill of exceptions. The failure to bring the evidence into the record by a bill of exceptions precludes us from rendering any opinion on the assigned error for the reason that no question is presented. *Miller, Admr.*v. *Wabash Fire and Casualty Insurance Company et al.*(1963), 135 Ind. App. 381, 193 N. E. 2d 917, pts. 1 and 2.

Appellees have filed a motion to affirm the judgment or, in the alternative, to dismiss the appeal on the ground that by reason of the fourth (4th) paragraph of §28-6106(3) (d), Burns’ 1964 Cumulative Supplement, the question here sought to be presented is “now moot”. In view of the fact, as we have found, that no justiciable question is presented by the record herein, the motion becomes bootless.

*405Judgment affirmed.

Hunter, C. J., and Mote, Pfaff, JJ., concur.

Note.—Reported in 202 N. E. 2d 183.
Home | Contact RGGI, Inc. | Sitemap | Mailing List

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

an initiative of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States of the U.S.

RGGI, Inc. RGGI Benefits CO Auctions, Tracking & Offsets Program Design News & Updates Documents

Home > CO Auctions, Tracking & Offsets > CO Offsets > Offset Categories

CO Auctions

Tracking

Market Monitor

CO Offsets

> Offset Categories

Landfill Methane

SF6 Emissions

Forestry/Afforestation

Energy Efficiency

Manure Management

Offset Requirements

Offset Project Tracking

Application Process

Verification Process

Offset Categories

Offset projects in the following five project categories may be eligible for the award of CO offset allowances provided 

they meet all requirements in RGGI State regulations:

• Landfill methane capture and destruction

• Reduction in emissions of sulfur hexafluoride (SF ) in the electric power sector

• Sequestration of carbon due to U.S. forest projects (reforestation, improved forest management, avoided 

conversion) or afforestation (for CT and NY only)

• Reduction or avoidance of CO emissions from natural gas, oil, or propane end-use combustion due to end-use 

energy efficiency in the building sector

• Avoided methane emissions from agricultural manure management operations

Please follow the links to the left to view key category-specific eligibility requirements for each project category. 

Prospective project sponsors should review all requirements in state CO Budget Trading Program regulations, 

including category-specific requirements addressing emissions baselines, determination of emissions reductions, and 

monitoring and verification.

Search...

2

2 2

2

2

2

6

2

2

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) CO2 Budget Trading Program - Offset Categ... Page 1 of 1

http://www.rggi.org/market/offsets/categories 6/9/2014
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 109

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that the effective date

for discontinuance of compensation and pension paid by the Secretary

of Veterans Affairs shall be the date on which the recipient dies, rather

than the last day of the preceding month, in the case of a veteran

with a surviving spouse, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. BILIRAKIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that

the effective date for discontinuance of compensation and

pension paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall

be the date on which the recipient dies, rather than

the last day of the preceding month, in the case of

a veteran with a surviving spouse, 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,
2

•HR 109 IH

1 SECTION 1. EFFECTIVE DATE OF DISCONTINUANCE OF

2 CERTAIN VETERANS’ BENEFITS BY REASON

3 OF DEATH OF RECIPIENT.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5112(b)(1) of title 38,

5 United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

6 ‘‘(1) by reason of—

7 ‘‘(A) the marriage or remarriage of the

8 payee, shall be the last day of the month before

9 the month during which such marriage or re10 marriage occurs; and

11 ‘‘(B) the death of the payee, shall be (i)

12 the last day of the month before the month dur13 ing which the death occurs, or (ii) in the case

14 of a payee who was in receipt of compensation

15 or pension and who has a surviving spouse, the

16 date on which the death occurs;’’.

17 (b) PAYMENT OF BENEFIT FOR FINAL MONTH.—

18 Section 5112 of such title is further amended by adding

19 at the end the following new subsection:

20 ‘‘(d) In the case of discontinuance of payment of com21 pensation or pension covered by subsection (b)(1)(B)(ii),

22 the payment for the final calendar month (or any portion

23 thereof) for which such benefit is payable shall (notwith24 standing any other provision of law) be payable to the sur25 viving spouse.’’.
3

•HR 109 IH

1 (c) COMMENCEMENT DATE FOR DIC.—Section

2 5110(d) of such title is amended by adding at the end

3 the following new paragraph:

4 ‘‘(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the effective

5 date of an award of dependency and indemnity compensa6 tion for which application is received within one year from

7 the date of death shall, in the case of a surviving spouse

8 to whom an amount is payable pursuant to section

9 5111(d) of this title, be the day following the date on

10 which the death occurred.’’.

11 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

12 this section shall apply with respect to the death of com13 pensation and pension recipients occurring after the later

14 of (1) September 30, 1995, or (2) the date of the enact15 ment of this Act.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank Morton, Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 433]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios, J.), rendered September 4, 2003, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, petit larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his *412contention regarding the preliminary instructions given to the jury *(see*CPL 270.40; *People v Robinson,*8 AD3d 502 [2004]), and we decline to review such claim in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction *(see*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; *People v Giddens,*202 AD2d 976 [1994]; *People v Moore,*161 AD2d 733, 734 [1990]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or do not warrant reversal. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Covello, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

ICONIX BRAND GROUP, INC.

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 Quarterly Report of Iconix Brand Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period June 30, 2015 (the “Report”), I, David K. Jones, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.

 

|                                                      |
|------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ David K. Jones                                   |
| David K. Jones                                       |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

Date: August 26, 2015
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

					NO. 2-06-295-CR

JOSHUA RAY MONTEZ 	          					APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	----------

	FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

		MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered appellant’s “Motion To Dismiss Appeal.”  The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id.; Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). 											 														

										PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	WALKER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and MCCOY, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: January 25, 2007
#### § 19.605 How does suspension differ from debarment?

Suspension differs from debarment in that—

| A suspending official . . . | A debarring official . . . |
| --- | --- |
| (a) Imposes suspension as a temporary status of ineligibility for procurement and nonprocurement transactions, pending completion of an investigation or legal proceedings | Imposes debarment for a specified period as a final determination that a person is not presently responsible. |
| (b) Must— (1) Have *adequate evidence* that there may be a cause for debarment of a person; and (2) Conclude that *immediate action* is necessary to protect the Federal interest | Must conclude, based on a *preponderance of the evidence,* that the person has engaged in conduct that warrants debarment. |
| (c) Usually imposes the suspension *first,* and then promptly notifies the suspended person, giving the person an opportunity to contest the suspension and have it lifted | Imposes debarment *after* giving the respondent notice of the action and an opportunity to contest the proposed debarment. |
October 2, 2015

Mr. Garrett Jaimerson Lee Escue

1710 W est Erie

C101

Springfield, MO 65807

Dear Mr . Escue :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

part 21 and § § 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b), 91.103(b), 91.109, 119.121,

91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). I t explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your exemption request filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2851 , but we are unable

to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the requirements of

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of

the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This web site helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will c lose the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 14540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05094]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850; FRL-9380-7]

Chlorpyrifos Registration Review; Preliminary Volatilization 
Assessment; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register issue of February 
6, 2013, concerning Chlorpyrifos Registration Review; Preliminary 
Evaluation of the Potential Risk From Volatilization. This document 
extends the comment period for 60 days, from March 8, 2013 to May 7, 
2013.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2008-0850, must be received on or before May 7, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES 
in the Federal Register document of February 6, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Wolf, Pesticide Re-Evaluation 
Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number: (703) 347-0228; email address: 
wolf.joel@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document extends the public comment 
period established in the Federal Register issue of February 6, 2013 
(78 FR 8522) (FRL-9376-5). In that document, EPA announced the 
availability for public comment of its preliminary volatilization 
assessment for the registration review of chlorpyrifos. EPA received 
requests from several commenters to extend the comment period. EPA is 
hereby extending the comment period, which was set to end on March 8, 
2013, to May 7, 2013.
    To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the 
detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES in the February 6, 
2013 Federal Register document. If you have questions, consult the 
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Chlorpyrifos, Pesticides, Pests.

    Dated: February 26, 2013.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide 
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-05094 Filed 3-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1014 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 488
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1014

                          [Report No. 104-313]

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 15, 1995

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

                             June 28, 1996

              Reported by Mr. Murkowski, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
      To authorize extension of time limitation for a FERC-issued 
                         hydroelectric license.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
the time limitation of section 13 of the Federal Power Act, the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, upon the request of the licensee for FERC 
Project No. 3701, is authorized, in accordance with the good faith, due 
diligence, and public interest requirements of section 13 and the 
Commission's procedures under such section, to extend the time required 
for the licensee to commence the construction of such project for up to 
a maximum of 3 consecutive 2-year periods. This section shall take 
effect for the project upon the expiration of the extension (issued by 
the Commission under section 13) of the period required for 
commencement of construction of such project. If the license for FERC 
Project 3701 should expire prior to the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Commission is authorized and directed to reinstate effective June 
1, 1995, the license previously issued for such project.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 13, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 488

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1014

                          [Report No. 104-313]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

      To authorize extension of time limitation for a FERC-issued 
                         hydroelectric license.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 28, 1996

                       Reported without amendment
```