alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.3

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

      I, Edward J. Shoen, Chairman of the Board and President of U-Haul
International, Inc., certify that:

1.    the Quarterly Report of U-Haul International, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the
      quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), which this
      statement accompanies, 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 U-Haul
      International, Inc.



                                         /s/ Edward J. Shoen
                                         -----------------------------------
                                         Edward J. Shoen
                                         Chairman of the Board and President
                                         August 16, 2002
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 232 ) ll-K - (I ) -4 5 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:56

AM Sheet 232 of 325P. 2



# h4 II-K-(I)-4 5
TECHNICA L AND ECONOMI C FEASIBILIT YO F ALTERNATIV E FUE L US E I N PROCES S HEATER S AND SMAL L BOILERS . EEA , Inc . Februar y 1980 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(I)-4 5
#### THEODORE MINER, Respondent, *v.*THOMAS GARDINER, Jr., Appellant.

*Inspection of boohs—when not allowed—Value of sm'mces in Iceeping boohs*— *haw proved.*

In an action brought to recover for services rendered as book-keeper, an inspection of the books of the defendant should not be ordered to enable the plaintiff to have them examined by an expert, so that he may testify from their appearance as to the value of the services *rendered in*keeping them. The proper way is to prove the services and the time occupied in performing them, and then prove their value.

Appeal from an order denying a motion made by defendant for a reference, and from an order granting an inspection of books of the defendant.

*Roe &*Macklin, for the appellant.

*Wm. Dudley Foulke,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.

Present — Barnard, P. J., and Gilbert, J.

Order denying reference affirmed with costs; order granting inspection reversed, with costs.
From: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>

To: Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 04/06/2010 03:46 PM

Subject: Interagency comments under EO 12866 on the Gold Ore Processing NESHAP Draft

NPRM

Hello Chuck,

Interagency comments on the draft Gold Ore Processing NESHAP NPRM under EO 12866 Review:

1. Page 33 Section C: It would be helpful to the reader to present the proposed standards in a

Table.

2. Page 34 Line 21: We suggest adding in parentheses the emissions for each process stack will be

reported in total pounds for the 12 month reporting period as this is not clearly stated.

3. Page 40 Line 17: It is suggested small buffers to account for variability during normal operation

may be used in cases where there is “very little variability” during the performance test. We

suggest a numerical limit be applied here, i.e., if the variability is ? 5%. The last sentence of the

paragraph refers to ±10% for the size of the buffer but it is not clear if this is also in relation to

the amount of variability that will enable the owner or operator to make use of a buffer.

4. Page 41 top: It is written “...according to EPA Performance Specification (PS) 12A (except that

calibration standards traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) are

not required).” The text in parentheses is not clear with respect to what is not required, i.e., if

standards that are traceable to NIST are used, is the PS12A method not required?

5. Page 42 top: For facilities that control roaster mercury emissions with mercury scrubbers, an

exemption from the proposed sorbent trap or mercury CEMs monitoring requirement is

proposed if a facility demonstrates that the mercury emissions from its roasters are consistently

low and well controlled. There is no mention of what will be required if the input material is

changed.

Best regards,

heidi
### Regional hydrology and simulation of deep ground-water flow in the Southeastern Coastal Plain aquifer system in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina

By: R.A. BarkerMaribeth Pernik

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1410C

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 8**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 9**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 10**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

The Southeastern Coastal Plain aquifer system is a coastward-sloping, wedge-shaped sand and gravel reservoir exposed in outcrop to a humid climate and drained by an extensive surface-water network. Ground-water pumpage has increased to about 765 cubic feet per second since 1900, causing water-level declines of more than 150 feet in places, while base flow to major streams has decreased about 350 cubic feet per second. The water-level declines and adjustments in recharge and discharge are not expected to seriously restrict future ground-water development.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### § 3010.123 Rejected filings.

Any filing that does not comply with an applicable Commission rule or order may be rejected. Any filing that is rejected is deemed not to have been filed with the Commission. If a filing is rejected, the Secretary will attempt to notify the person submitting the filing, indicating the reason(s) for rejection. Acceptance for filing shall not waive any failure to comply with this part, and such failure may be cause for subsequently striking all or any part of any document. Any controversies concerning the acceptability of a filing shall be resolved after review by the Office of General Counsel.
#### § 101-26.507-2 Procurement time schedule.

Requisitions for security equipment will be consolidated by GSA on January 31, April 30, July 31, and October 31 of each year. The consolidated requisitions will be used in executing definite quantity contracts. To ensure inclusion in the invitation for bids, requisitions shall be submitted to GSA on or before January 1, April 1, July 1, or October 1 as appropriate. Requisitions received after any of these dates normally will be carried over to the subsequent consolidation date. Approximately 180 calendar days following the consolidation dates should be allowed for initial delivery. Requisitions shall include a required delivery date which reflects anticipated receipt under the time schedule.

[43 FR 32765, July 28, 1978]
EXHIBIT 21
 SUBSIDIARIES OF DELTA APPAREL, INC.
  (1)
    
    M. J. Soffe, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company.(2)
    
    Junkfood Clothing Company, a Georgia corporation.(3)
    
    To The Game, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company.(4)
    
    Art Gun, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company.(5)
    
    TCX, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company.(6)
    
    Delta Apparel Honduras, S.A., a Honduran sociedad anónima.(7)
    
    Delta Campeche, S.A. de C.V., a Mexican sociedad anónima de capital variable.(8)
    
    Delta Cortes, S.A., a Honduran sociedad anónima.(9)
    
    Campeche Sportswear, S de RL de CV, a Mexican sociedad de responsabilidad de capital
variable.(10)
    
    Textiles La Paz, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company.(11)
    
    Ceiba Textiles, S de RL, a Honduran sociedad de responsabilidad limitada.(12)
    
    Atled Holding Company Honduras, S de RL, a Honduran sociedad de responsabilidad limitada.(13)
    
    LaPaz Honduras, S de RL, a Honduran sociedad de responsabilidad limitada.
Exhibit 31.2  Certification Pursuant to pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended  I, Janet L. Crance, Chief Accounting Officer of Health Enhancement Products, Inc. (the Company), certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company;  2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report 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 period covered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  5. The registrants other certifying officer and 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 registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control 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: March 31, 2008/s/ Janet L. CranceJanet L. CranceChief Accounting OfficerPrincipal Accounting Officer
#### EMERICK CRAWFORD, Respondent, *v.*WALTER R. JONES, Appellant.

*Admission of receipt of money by agent*— estoppel.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Westchester county, affirming a judgment in favor of the plaintiff recovered in a Justice’s Court.

The plaintiff, in 1869, assigned to defendant, for collection, a small claim of about nineteen dollars, which he, the plaintiff, had against *309the estate of Joseph Ingersoll. In March, 1873, the plaintiff claims to have had an interview with defendant, in which the defendant stated to him that he had collected or “ had allowed to him ” fourteen dollars on the assigned claim, which he promised to pay plaintiff early in April, 1873.

The plaintiff sued to recover this claim, before a justice, and recovered. On appeal to the County Court, it was tried by a jury and a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff, for fourteen dollars.

The defendant denied the interview with plaintiff, wherein he admitted recovering fourteen dollars, and promised to pay it to plaintiff, and he also gave evidence tending to show, that he had not received any money either of the Ingersoll estate, or of the surviving partner of J. Ingersoll & Son.

The judge charged the jury that if the defendant admitted the receipt of fourteen dollars and promised to pay it, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for it, whether he, defendant, had received the money or not.

The General Term *held,*that the charge was correct, and affirmed the judgment.

*Eugene B. Trmis,*for appellant. *Travis (& Lent,*for respondent.

Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Tappen and Taloott, JJ.

Judgment of County Court affirmed, with costs.
§ 384.13 May the Corps of Engineers waive any provision of these regulations? ( a ) Emergency and disaster recovery actions performed under Pub. L. 99, 84th Congress, are excluded from the requirements of the Order and this regulation.
( b ) In other emergencies, the Division Engineer may waive any provision of these regulations.
#### § 3055.32 Measurement systems using a delivery factor.

For measurements that include a delivery factor, the duration of the delivery factor also shall be presented independent of the total measurement.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Employment Outlook in Printing Occupations

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics					 and 	Vernoff, Samuel. 						*Employment Outlook in Printing Occupations : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 902*,												Washington: 								U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 										1947,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4351,			accessed on September 22, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-2802

___________ Public School Retirement System of * Missouri, * * Interpleader Plaintiff, * * v. * * United States of America; John J. * Sanderson, * * Interested Parties. * ________ * * Appeal from the United States John J. Sanderson, * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Appellant, * * [UNPUBLISHED] v. * * United States of America, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: August 8, 2006 Filed: August 16, 2006

___________ Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.1 The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, Unite d States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2- John J. Sanderson appeals from the district court’s 1 dismissal of his counterclaims against the United States in this interpleader action filed by the Public School Retirement System of Missouri. The government has filed a motion for sanctions to partially cover its expenses in defending this suit. After de novo review, see LeMay v. U.S. Postal Svc. , 450 F.3d 797, 799 (8th Cir. 2006), we conclude the dismissal wa s proper for the reasons explained by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm. See8th Cir. R. 47B. Regarding the request for sanctions, we may award “just damages” and single or double costs if we determine th at an appeal is frivolous. See28 U.S.C. § 1912; Fed. R. App. P. 38. In this case, we find that Sanderson has filed a frivolous appeal raising tax-protester arguments of the kind that he unsuccessfully raised below. In these circumstances, we conclude that sanctions are appropriate. See United States v. Gerads , 999 F.2d 1255, 1256-57 (8th Cir. 1993 ) (per curiam) (when appellant brought frivolous appeal based on tax-protes ter argument, court granted government’s motion for sanctions). Accordingly, we award the government $3,000 in damages.

______________________________
§ 3012.6 Required action upon ex parte communications. ( a ) Commission decision-making personnel who receive ex parte communications relevant to the merits of the proceeding shall decline to listen to such communications and explain that the matter is pending for determination. Any recipient thereof shall advise the communicator that the communication will not be considered, and shall promptly and fully inform the Commission in writing of the substance of and the circumstances attending the communication, so that the Commission will be able to take appropriate action.
( b ) Commission decision-making personnel who receive, or who make or knowingly cause to be made, ex parte communications prohibited by this part shall promptly place, or cause to be placed, on the public record of the proceeding: ( 1 ) All such written communications;
( 2 ) Memoranda stating the substance of all such oral communications; and
( 3 ) All written responses, and memoranda stating the substance of all oral responses, to the materials described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
( c ) Requests for an opportunity to rebut, on the record, any facts or contentions contained in an ex parte communication which have been placed on the public record of the proceeding pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section may be filed in writing with the Commission. The Commission will grant such requests only where it determines that the dictates of fairness so require. In lieu of actually receiving rebuttal material, the Commission may in its discretion direct that the alleged factual assertion and the proposed rebuttal be disregarded in arriving at a decision.
§ 762.11 General. The Postal Service, at its discretion, issues a specialized postal money order, designated a Disbursement Postal Money Order in payment of Postal Service obligations. Disbursement Postal Money Orders are distinguishable on their face from other postal money orders in the following ways: ( a ) Disbursement Postal Money Orders have words of negotiability—“Pay to the order of”—printed on their face, while other postal money orders simply bear the words “Pay to” on their face;
( b ) Disbursement Postal Money Orders, unlike other postal money orders, bear on their face the phrase, “This special money order is drawn by the Postal Service to pay one of its own obligations.”; and
( c ) The amounts of Disbursement Postal Money Orders are printed in words as well as numbers, while the amounts of postal money orders available at post offices are printed in numbers only.
2024 AmeriCorps VISTA Sponsor Verification

and Member Pay Schedule

Pay Period Start Date End Date Sponsor Verification 

Due Date in Portal

Official Member 

Payday

202401 12/17/2023 to 12/30/2023 12/28/2023 1/5/2024

202402 12/31/2023 to 1/13/2024 1/11/2024 1/19/2024

202403 1/14/2024 to 1/27/2024 1/25/2024 2/2/2024

202404 1/28/2024 to 2/10/2024 2/8/2024 2/16/2024

202405 2/11/2024 to 2/24/2024 2/22/2024 3/1/2024

202406 2/25/2024 to 3/9/2024 3/7/2024 3/15/2024

202407 3/10/2024 to 3/23/2024 3/21/2024 3/29/2024

202408 3/24/2024 to 4/6/2024 4/4/2024 4/12/2024

202409 4/7/2024 to 4/20/2024 4/18/2024 4/26/2024

202410 4/21/2024 to 5/4/2024 5/2/2024 5/10/2024

202411 5/5/2024 to 5/18/2024 5/16/2024 5/24/2024

202412 5/19/2024 to 6/1/2024 5/30/2024 6/7/2024

202413 6/2/2024 to 6/15/2024 6/13/2024 6/21/2024

202414 6/16/2024 to 6/29/2024 6/27/2024 7/5/2024

202415 6/30/2024 to 7/13/2024 7/11/2024 7/19/2024

202416 7/14/2024 to 7/27/2024 7/25/2024 8/2/2024

202417 7/28/2024 to 8/10/2024 8/8/2024 8/16/2024

202418 8/11/2024 to 8/24/2024 8/22/2024 8/30/2024

202419 8/25/2024 to 9/7/2024 9/5/2024 9/13/2024

202420 9/8/2024 to 9/21/2024 9/19/2024 9/27/2024

202421 9/22/2024 to 10/5/2024 10/3/2024 10/11/2024

202422 10/6/2024 to 10/19/2024 10/17/2024 10/25/2024

202423 10/20/2024 to 11/2/2024 10/31/2024 11/8/2024

202424 11/3/2024 to 11/16/2024 11/14/2024 11/22/2024

202425 11/17/2024 to 11/30/2024 11/28/2024 12/6/2024

202426 12/1/2024 to 12/14/2024 12/12/2024 12/20/2024

202501 12/15/2024 to 12/28/2024 12/26/2024 1/3/2025

202502 12/29/2024 to 1/11/2025 1/9/2025 1/17/2025

1/2/2024
#### WILLIAM C. DICKEL, Appellant, *v.*THE MAYOR, Etc., Respondent.

*Armory and chill room*— request *for*— what *sufficient.*

Appeal from a judgment in favor of tbe defendant, entered upon a verdict directed by the court.

The plaintiff claimed to recover rent which became due under a lease, which was executed by virtue of a resolution of the board of supervisors, and by the terms of which, the premises described, were hired for an armory and drill rooms. It did not appear that any demand, application -or request was made for the rooms except that contained in a letter from Major-General Shaler, which did not particularize any troops or regiment. The General Term held, that this request was not a compliance with the provisions of the one hundred and twentieth section of the military code (Laws of 1870, p. 248), and the lease was, therefore, made without authority, as was shown in the cases of *Fallon*v. *The*Mayor, and *Ford*v. *The Mayor*(reported in 11 S. O. [4 Hun], at pp. 583, 587).

*John A*Godfrey, for appellant. *William G. Whitney,*for respondent.

Opinion by

Brady, J.

Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.