alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
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. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of
Peoples Educational Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 14, 2005


/s/ Michael L. DeMarco
-------------------------------------
Michael L. DeMarco,
Chief Financial Officer
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – June 26, 2021

# 									Public Schedule – June 26, 2021							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

June 26, 2021

*****THE DAILY PUBLIC SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE*****

 

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN**

Secretary Blinken is on travel to Germany, France, Italy, and the Vatican, from June 22-29, 2021.  Please click here for more information.

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
§ 227.3 Notice of proposed default determination. ( a ) *Consideration of evidence.* Following submission of evidence by the claimant or counterclaimant, as set forth in § 227.2, the Board shall review such evidence and shall determine whether it is sufficient to support a finding in favor of the claimant or counterclaimant under applicable law. As part of its review, the Board shall consider whether the respondent or counterclaim respondent has a meritorious defense. If the Board finds the evidence sufficient to support a finding in favor of the claimant or counterclaimant, it shall determine the appropriate relief and damages, if any, to be awarded. ( 1 ) If the Board determines that the evidence is sufficient to support a finding in favor of the claimant or counterclaimant, the Board shall prepare a proposed *default determination.*
( 2 ) If the Board determines that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding in favor of the claimant or counterclaimant, the Board shall prepare a proposed determination dismissing the proceeding without prejudice and shall provide written notice of such proposed determination to the claimant or counterclaimant. The claimant or counterclaimant may submit a response to the proposed determination within 30 days of the date of the notice of proposed determination. Such response shall follow the procedures set forth in § 220.5(b) of this subchapter and be limited to seven pages. After considering any response from the claimant or counterclaimant, the Board shall either maintain its proposed determination and dismiss the proceeding without prejudice or determine that the evidence is sufficient to support a finding in favor of the claimant or counterclaimant and prepare a proposed *default determination.*
( b ) *Proposed default determination.* The proposed *default determination* shall include a finding in favor of the claimant or counterclaimant and the damages awarded, if any. The proposed *default determination* shall also include dismissal of any counterclaims asserted by the defaulting respondent.
( c ) *Notice to respondent or counterclaim respondent.* The Board shall provide written notice to the respondent or counterclaim respondent of the pendency of the *default determination* and the legal significance of the *default determination,* including any liability for damages, if applicable, as set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1506(u)(2). The notice shall be accompanied by the proposed *default determination* and shall provide the respondent or counterclaim respondent 30 days, beginning on the date of the notice, to submit any evidence or other information in opposition to the proposed *default determination.*
#### § 87.5 What information must be included in the grant application?

The application must contain a complete description of the objective of the project and the plan for carrying out the research or demonstration, the name and qualifications of the principal investigator or project director and principal staff members, the total resources and facilities that will be available, and a justification of the amount of grant funds requested.
#### § 10.17 Designation of beneficiary subsequent to cancellation of previous designation.

The designation of a beneficiary made subsequent to the cancellation of a previous designation of beneficiary, shall be considered as a change in beneficiary, and shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary and subject to the conditions and requirements respecting change in beneficiary as outlined in § 10.16.
## Draft Proposal CB-42

This concept has been developed by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) as a possible code

change proposal to the Commercial provisions of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code

(IECC). Interested parties are asked to submit any and all comments on DOE's initial concepts and draft

code change proposals. For instructions on submitting comments, visit:

www.energycodes.gov/development/ commercial/codes/iecc/concepts/



## Mechanical Commissioning Order of Events (CB-42)

Objective: Clarify the order in which commissioning events take place.

Revise Section C408.2 as follows:

C406.2 Mechanical systems commissioning and completion requirements. Prior to passing the final

mechanical inspection, the registered design professi onal shall provide evidence of mechanical systems

commissioning and completion in accordance with this section.

(Remainder of the section remains unchanged.)

Reason: Clarification. The current code requires something to be done in advance of a future event.

The registered design professional can only provide something either prior to an inspection or after

passage of the inspection.

Cost Impact: There is no cost impact associated with this proposed change.
#### Matter of Proving the Last Will and Testament of Frances Morris Delprat, Deceased.

(Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

May, 1899.)

Will — Execution — Failure of testatrix to declare the instrument to be her will.

Where the only evidence that a decedent declared a paper, offered for probate, tó be her will is contained in a recital, to that effect in the attestation clause, and the only subscribing witness produced testifies that the decedent did not declare to her that the paper was her will and merely requested the testifying witness to sign the “ instrument ” as a witness and this testimony is confirmed by that of the husband of the testatrix who was present, probate will be refused, as it must appear unequivocally that the testatrix communicated to the subscribing witnesses the testamentary character of the instrument. . ' .

Proceedings upon the probate of a wilL

Joseph F. Hover, for proponent.

Ooudert Bros., for legatees.

Maginnis *&*Blackwell, for contestants. .

Gilbert W. Minor, special guardian.

Fitzgerald, S.

The instrument offered for probate purports to have been subscribed by the decedent* and signed by two witnesses. There is a full attestation clause. One of the subscribing witnesses cannot be found. The other, a French woman, was examined by commission and testified, that the decedent Subscribed , the will in the presence of both witnesses, and requested her to *356sign the “instrument” as a witness; that she so signed and that she saw the other witness sign. She testified positively that the decedent did not declare that the instrument was her will, at least not in the French language, and that the witness did-not understand the' English language in which the decedent conversed with the other subscribing witness. The husband testified that he was present-at the time of execution and heard all that "was said by the decedent to the subscribing witnesses; that he asked the missing witness to sign the instrument, and that neither the decedent nor • he informed the witnesses that, the instrument was her will. The only evidence of a declaration by the decedent is a statement to that effect in the attestation clause. When supportéd by other proof, the attestation clause becomes very important, and upon such combined evidence wills have been sustained where the witnesses failed to recollect what took place at the time of execution, and even where they testified that the acts required by the statute had not been performed. The formal proof may not, however, be presumed from the attestation clause alone and against positive credible testimony. Woolley v. Woolley, 95 N. Y. 231; Lewis v. Lewis, 11 id. 220. The decedent requested the witness to sign the “instrument.” The description of the paper by the witness as a “ will or agreement,” or as an “ instrument in writing ” is insufficient. Rutherford v. Rutherford, 1 Den. 33; Wilson v. Hetterick, 2 Bradf. 427. It must be made to appear unequivocally that the testamentary character of the instrument was communicated by the testator to the witnesses. Lewis v. Lewis, 11 N. Y. 229; Ex parte Beers, 2 Bradf. 163.

Probate denied.
DOH/EPA Request for Additional Information of 01 August 2014

Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility

Questions 9 through 12, (DOH/EPA Request 1c.): Describe all monitoring efforts from 2009‐present of

groundwater and/or drinking water. Provide any supporting documents (including monitoring data,

sampling methods, and analytical methods exercised).

Response:  The following drinking water information is provided for the regulatory monitoring

completed for the JBPHH Water System #360 at Red Hill from 2009 to the present.   

The list below contains the sampling performed by the Navy as required by regulation.  These sampling

reports were submitted to the State of Hawaii Department of Health and are also maintained in Navy

records.  Other analyses performed by the DOH on the Red Hill system are not included in this list and

those results are maintained in the DOH database.

Date

Submitted

Date

Sampled Contaminant

Sample Location

8/14/2009 5/19/2009

Phase II and Phase V

contaminants

Pump head tap

4/14/2010 9/1/2009

Phase II and Phase V

contaminants

Pump head tap

4/14/2010 7/21/2009

Inorganic Chemicals, Volatile

Organics, Secondary

Contaminants

Pump head tap

5/17/2010 4/22/2010 Triggered Source monitoring Pump head tap

10/4/2011 7/13/2011 Nitrate Pump head tap

7/3/2012 4/24/2012

Phase II and Phase V

contaminants

Tap outside chlorine bldg

10/26/2012 9/6/2012 Nitrite/Nitrate Tap outside chlorine bldg

1/31/2013 7/30/2012

SOCs, Inorganics, VOCs, Sodium,

Secondary Contaminants

Tap outside chlorine bldg.

7/24/2013 7/18/2013 Triggered Source monitoring Pump head tap

6/20/2014 4/8/2014

Phase II and Phase V

contaminants

Tap outside chlorine bldg

All analyses were performed by certified laboratories using methods prescribed by EPA and the DOH.  

Information from this sampling contributes to the annual Water Quality Report for the Joint Base Pearl

Harbor‐Hickam Water System.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 09805**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** x 09805\09805_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09805\09805_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09805\09805_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09805\09805_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09805\09805_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

09805\Certification Statement Plant ID 09805.pdf Plant certification statement x 09805\PPL Montour - Plant ID 09805 Answers to Questions_012111.rtf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09805\PPL Montour - Plant ID 09805 Answers to Questions_012411.rtf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

09805\Supplemental Documents\09805_PPLMontour_CoverLetter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09805\Supplemental Documents\09805_PPLMontour_MAP-1_091310.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

09805\Supplemental Documents\09805_PPLMontour_MO AB1 EA-ES.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 09805\Supplemental Documents\09805_PPLMontour_MO AB3 EA-ES.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09805\Supplemental Documents\09805_PPLMontour_POND-1_091410.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09805\Supplemental Documents\09805_PPLMontour_WB-1_091510.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09805\Supplemental Documents\09805_PPLMontour_WWT-1 Eng Rep.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09805\Supplemental Documents\09805_PPLMontour_WWT-1_091510.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09805\Supplemental Documents\09805_PPLMontour_WWT-A_090910.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09805\09805_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

09805\09805_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 68 FR 14337, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### § 2.117 Suspension of proceedings.

(a) Whenever it shall come to the attention of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that a civil action, another Board proceeding, or an expungement or reexamination proceeding may have a bearing on a pending case, proceedings before the Board may be suspended until termination of the civil action, the other Board proceeding, or the expungement or reexamination proceeding. A civil action or proceeding is not considered to have been terminated until an order or ruling that ends litigation has been rendered and noticed and the time for any appeal or other further review has expired with no further review sought.

(b) Whenever there is pending before the Board both a motion to suspend and a motion which is potentially dispositive of the case, the potentially dispositive motion may be decided before the question of suspension is considered regardless of the order in which the motions were filed.

(c) Proceedings may also be suspended sua sponte by the Board, or, for good cause, upon motion or a stipulation of the parties approved by the Board. Many consented or stipulated motions to suspend are suitable for automatic approval by ESTTA, but the Board retains discretion to condition approval on the party or parties providing necessary information about the status of settlement talks, discovery activities, or trial activities, as may be appropriate.

[48 FR 23136, May 23, 1983, as amended at 63 FR 48097, Sept. 9, 1998; 81 FR 69975, Oct. 7, 2016; 86 FR 64330, Nov. 17, 2021]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
MEMORANDUM

Date: June 15, 2015

Subject: Secondary (Environmental and Energy) Impacts for the f inal Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP – Area Sources 40 CFR 63, Subpart NN – Final Rule

From: Susan Fairchild, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

To: EPA Air Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042

I. Introduction

This memorandum documents the estimated environmental and energy impacts associated with the

National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 40 CFR 63, Subpart NN - Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing for area sources. Secondary i mpacts include the solid waste, water, wastewater generated and the electricity required to opera te air pollution control devices, as well as, the resultant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from controls or work practices required by the NESHAP.

II. Water, Wastewater, and Solid Waste Impacts

The EPA estimates that none of the gas-fired glass-me lting furnaces at area source wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities will need to replace the (chrom ium) refractory lining of those furnaces earlier than usual to remain compliant with the final chromium compound emission limit for Subpart NN. Therefore, there are no significant water or wastewat er impacts.

III. Energy Impacts and GHG Emissions from Electricity Usage

Since none of the gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at a rea source wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities will need to be rebuilt to comply with the final chro mium compound emission limit for Subpart NN, there are no energy/electricity or GHG emission impac ts associated with the final rule.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION N o s . 04

- 14

- 00209

- CR 04

- 14

- 0021 1

- CR & 04

- 14

- 0021 2

- CR Shanelle Evette CHARLES 1 , Appellant
v. T he STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No s . 2014CR0038 , 2012CR3193, & 2013CR10374 Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Delivered and File d: May 21, 2014 DISMISSED Appellant entered into three plea bargain agreements with the State pursuant to which she pleaded nolo contendere to the offenses of bribery, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and burglary of a habitation by force. The trial court imposed sentence in each case and , in each case,

1 In the judgments in Appeal Nos. 04

- 14

- 00209

- CR and 04

- 14

- 00211

- CR, appellant’s name is stated as Shanelle Evette Charles. However, in Appeal No. 04

- 14

- 00212

- CR, the judgment states appellant’s name is Shanelle Cooks. I t is clear from the records that Shanelle Evette Charles and Shanelle Cooks are the same person. Accordingly, w e shall refer to appellant as Shanelle Evette Charles.04

- 14

- 00209

- CR, 04

- 14

- 00211

- CR & 04

- 14

- 00212

- CR signed a certificate stating that this “ is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal .” See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant timely filed notice s of appeal. The clerk ’ s record s , which include the p lea bargain agreement s and the trial court ’ s Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification s , ha ve been filed. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(d). This court must dismiss an appeal “ if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of th e record. ” Id. Th is court gave appellant notice that the appeal s would be dismissed unless amended trial court certification s showing s he has the right to appeal were made part of the appellate record s within thirty days. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(d); 37.1 ; Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order), disp. on merits , No. 04

- 03

- 00176

- CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (July 2, 2003, pet. ref ’ d) (not designated for publication). Appellant’ s appointed appellate counsel filed a written response, stating he has reviewed the record s and can find no right of appeal. After reviewing the record s and counsel ’ s response , we agree appellant does not have a right to appeal. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of appeals should review clerk ’ s record to determine whether trial court ’ s certification is accurate). We therefore dismiss th e s e appeal s . T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(d).
PER CURIAM Do Not Publish

- 2

-
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2121 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2121

 To modify a land grant patent issued by the Secretary of the Interior.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 2, 2007

   Mr. Stupak (for himself and Mr. Camp of Michigan) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To modify a land grant patent issued by the Secretary of the Interior.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO LAND GRANT PATENT ISSUED BY SECRETARY OF THE 
              INTERIOR.

    Patent Number 61-2000-0007, issued by the Secretary of the Interior 
to the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society, Chippewa County, 
Michigan, pursuant to section 5505 of division A of the Omnibus 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 
3009-516) is amended in paragraph 6, under the heading ``subject also 
to the following conditions'' by striking ``Whitefish Point 
Comprehensive Plan of October 1992, or a gift shop'' and inserting 
``Human Use/Natural Resource Plan for Whitefish Point, dated December 
2002, permitted as the intent of Congress''.
                                 <all>
```
August 8, 2016

Mr. James Dunn

Eastern Aero Solutions LLC 8340 Moyer Carriage
Cicero

, NY 13039

Re: FAA

– 2016

– 3201

Dear Mr. Dunn :

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and have determined that we will continue to process your petition.

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov

, we are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently

- issued regulation, Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 107 ( www.faa.gov/uas ) will satisfy your request

. We have determined that

y our request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your petition for exemption

.

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments , if we have not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov

.

Sincerely,

/s/
Brenda Robeson Program A nalyst