alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 160.538 Witnesses. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, testimony at the hearing must be given orally by witnesses under oath or affirmation.
( b ) At the discretion of the ALJ, testimony of witnesses other than the testimony of expert witnesses may be admitted in the form of a written statement. The ALJ may, at his or her discretion, admit prior sworn testimony of experts that has been subject to adverse examination, such as a deposition or trial testimony. Any such written statement must be provided to the other party, along with the last known address of the witness, in a manner that allows sufficient time for the other party to subpoena the witness for cross-examination at the hearing. Prior written statements of witnesses proposed to testify at the hearing must be exchanged as provided in § 160.518.
( c ) The ALJ must exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to: ( 1 ) Make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth;
( 2 ) Avoid repetition or needless consumption of time; and
( 3 ) Protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.
( d ) The ALJ must permit the parties to conduct cross-examination of witnesses as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts.
( e ) The ALJ may order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses, except that the ALJ may not order to be excluded— ( 1 ) A party who is a natural person;
( 2 ) In the case of a party that is not a natural person, the officer or employee of the party appearing for the entity pro se or designated as the party's representative; or
( 3 ) A natural person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of its case, including a person engaged in assisting the attorney for the Secretary.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Millennium Challenge Corporation

          - [MCC FR 06-18]

      ( print page 64746)    

# AGENCY:

Millennium Challenge Corporation.

# TIME AND DATE:

10 a.m. to 12 p.m., Wednesday, November 8, 2006.

# PLACE:

Department of State, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20520.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Information on the meeting may be obtained from Suzi M. Morris via e-mail at                         *Board@mcc.gov*                         or by telephone at (202) 521-3600.                    

# STATUS:

Meeting will be closed to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

The Board of Directors (the “Board”) of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (“MCC”) will hold a meeting to consider the selection of countries that will be eligible for FY 2007 Millennium Challenge Account (“MCA”) assistance under Section 607 of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (the “Act”), codified at 22 U.S.C. 7706, and Threshold Program assistance under Section 616 of the Act, codified at 22 U.S.C. 7715; discuss the proposed Compact with El Salvador; discuss other Compact and Threshold Program-related matters, and certain administrative matters. The agenda items are expected to involve the consideration of classified information and the meeting will be closed to the public.

Dated: October 31, 2006.

William Geoff Anderson, Jr.,

Vice President and General Counsel (Acting), Millennium Challenge Corporation.

[FR Doc. 06-9066 Filed 10-31-06; 4:57 pm]

BILLING CODE 9210-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 28 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 28

   Providing for the reappointment of Roger W. Ferguson as a citizen 
     regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 16, 2023

Ms. Cortez Masto (for herself, Mr. Boozman, and Mr. Peters) introduced 
 the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to 
               the Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   Providing for the reappointment of Roger W. Ferguson as a citizen 
     regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 
43) the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, 
in the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by reason of the 
expiration of the term of Roger W. Ferguson of Florida on April 25, 
2023, is filled by the reappointment of the incumbent. The 
reappointment is for a term of six years, beginning on the later of 
April 25, 2023, or the date of enactment of this joint resolution.
                                 <all>
```
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 Integrated Media
Holdings,  Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rene A. Schena certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:







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







(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







/s/  Rene
A. Schena




Rene A.
Schena


Chief
Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1
  Section 1350 Certification





In connection with the annual report of Patio Bahia, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Jeannot McCarthy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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 result of operations of the Company.






March 28, 2011
/s/ Jeannot McCarthyJeannot McCarthy, Chief Executive Officer ,

principal executive officers, principal financial

and accounting officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 24
- 00140
- CV

Dedric Dixon , Appellant

v. Sylvia Griffith Sanders, Kevin W. Boyd, Albert Jackson, and James Dixon , Appellee s

F ROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D - 1
- GN
- 19
- 004019 , THE HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Dedric Dixon attempts to appeal from the district court ’ s “Order Denying Bench Warrant.” By letter dated April 29, 2024, t he Clerk of this Court informed D ixon that th is Court appears to lack jurisdiction because there is no final judgment or appealable interlocutory order. The Clerk requested that Dixon file a response by May 9, 2024 , explaining how this Court may exercise jurisdiction over this matter. More than ten days have passed, and Dixon has not filed

a response. This Court has jurisdiction over a ppeals from final judgments and from certain interlocutory orders made appealable by statute. In re Guardianship of Jones , 629 S.W.3d 921, 924 ( Tex. 2021)

. An order denying a motion for a bench warrant is not independently appealable

. See In re Marriage of Hernandez & McCreary , No. 12

- 17

- 00397

- CV, 2018 WL 524864, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Tyler Jan. 24, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.); Ex parte M.B. ,2 No. 02

- 17

- 00070

- CV, 2017 WL 280 5871, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth June 29, 2017, no pet.) (m em. op.)

. Ab sent a final judgment or other statutory authorization for this appeal, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T e x. R. A p p. P. 42 .3(a).

__________________________________________ Rosa Lopez T heofanis , Justice Before Chief Justice By rne, Justices S m ith and Theofanis Dismis s ed for W ant of Jurisdiction Filed: May 24, 2024
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 967 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 967

   To amend the Federal Reserve Act to limit the ability of Federal 
         Reserve banks to issue central bank digital currency.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 23, 2023

Mr. Lee (for himself, Mr. Braun, and Mr. Cruz) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, 
                       Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Reserve Act to limit the ability of Federal 
         Reserve banks to issue central bank digital currency.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No Central Bank Digital Currency 
Act'' or the ``No CBDC Act''.

SEC. 2. CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCY.

    Section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act is amended by adding after 
the 14th undesignated paragraph (12 U.S.C. 347d) the following:
            ``No Federal reserve bank, the Board, the Secretary of the 
        Treasury, any other agency, or any entity directed to act on 
        behalf of the Federal reserve bank, the Board, the Secretary, 
        or other agency, may mint or issue a central bank digital 
        currency directly to an individual (including central bank 
        digital currency issued to an individual through a custodial 
        intermediary) or a digital currency intermediary, offer related 
        products or services directly to an individual, or maintain an 
        account on behalf of an individual (including an account in a 
        specially designated account at a digital currency intermediary 
        or supervised commercial bank). No Federal reserve bank may 
        hold digital currencies minted or issued by the United States 
        Government as assets or liabilities on a balance sheet of the 
        bank or use such digital currencies as part of fulfilling the 
        requirements under section 2A.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 1605.2 Definition.

*Appeal* means any appellate proceeding in a civil action as defined by law or usage in the jurisdiction in which the action is filed.
#### §§ 1151.25-1151.30 [Reserved]
Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = Hyd Pdt > mo Sorption to soils/sediments = Hyd Pdt v.strong PBT Potential: PMN P1B1; Hyd Pdt P3B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = Hyd Pdt negl

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is nil all routes ( p che m ). There is concern for irritation to all exposed tissues based on the high number of groups present in the PMN material. Low moderate concern.

Ecotox :

Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 * daphnid 48-h LC50 * green algal 96-h EC50 * fish

_ chronic value *
daphnid

_ chronic value *

algal

_ chronic value *
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge _ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions based on SARs for nonionic polymers; SAR chemical class = p olyme r -nonionic- N CO; MWn 8500 with 0% <1000; solid with mp unknown (P); S = reacts with water at 20 C (P); p H7; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; ECs based on 100% active ingredients and nominal concentrations, and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) Acute *

Concentration of Concern ( p pb) Chronic *

SARs nonionic polymers SAR Class p olyme r -nonionic- N CO TSCA New Chemcial Category N onionic PolymersEcotox Factors Comments:

SAT Chair: Becky Jones Fate assessor: W. Lee Ecotox assessor: Alie Muneer Health assessor:
#### § 1225.6 Freedom from reprisal.

Aggrieved parties, their representatives, and witnesses will be free from restraint, interference, coercion, discrimination, or reprisal at any stage in the presentation and processing of a complaint, including the counseling stage described in § 1225.8, or any time thereafter.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### February 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 

### 129271(26) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 129271 COA: 260055 Jackson CC: 02-000770-FC JOHN DAVID RUELAS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order of November 29, 2005 is considere d, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

p0221 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 27, 2006

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 5380]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-926]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

    In accordance with Departmental policy in 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that on January 13, 2006, a proposed Consent Decree in 
United States v. Quaker City, Inc., Consolidated Civil Action Nos. 99-
3715, 02-8964, 03-3231, 05-5938, was lodged with the United States 
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
    In this action, the United States sought recovery of environmental 
response costs incurred by the United States in connection with the 
Malvern TCE Superfund Site, located in Chester County, PA. The Consent 
Decree requires the settling Defendant to pay the United States the sum 
of $600,000.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent 
Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, 
Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to 
U.S. v. Quaker City Inc., D.J. Ref. <greek-i>90-11-3-08512. The Consent 
Decree may also be examined at the Office of the United States 
Attorney, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, c/o Marilyn May, Assistant 
United States Attorney, 615 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106; 
and at U.S. EPA Region III, c/o Joan A. Johnson, Assistant Regional 
Counsel, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. During the public 
comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined on the Department of 
Justice Web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/open/html. A copy of the 
Consent Decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree 
Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 
20044-7611, or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood 
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#14607b7a7d753a7278717160637b7b70546167707b7e3a737b62"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e1958e8f8880cf878d848495968e8e85a19492858e8bcf868e97">[email protected]</span></a>), fax no. (202) 514-0097, phone confirmation 
number (202) 514-1547. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree 
Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $6.75 for the Consent 
Decree (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. 
Treasury.

W. Benjamin Fisherow,
Deputy Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 06-926 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit
32.1








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Art Design, Inc. (the Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ended herein as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), I. Kathy Sheehan, Chief Executive and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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 fully presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations or the Company.





Dated:
March 25, 2008








By:
            /s/Kathy
      SheehanKathy
      Sheehan
              Chief
      Executive Officer
              Chief
      Financial Officer
1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-1610

___________ Phoebe M. Hudspeth, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Missouri. * Spectra Communications Group, LLC, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 3, 2003 Filed: December 12, 2003

___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Phoebe M. Hudspeth appeals the District Court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her employment-discrimination action against Spectra Communications Group, LLC (SCG). Having carefully reviewed the record, see Jacob-Mua v. Veneman , 289 F.3d 517, 520 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review), we affirm.-2- To the extent Hudspeth is arguing that summary judgment was prematurely granted, she neither moved to compel the production of documents, nor requested a continuance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). See Dulany v. Carnahan , 132 F.3d 1234, 1238 (8th Cir. 1997) (where shelter is not sought under Rule 56(f), court generally does not abuse its discretion in granting summary judgment on record before it). We agree with the District Court’s decision to consider all of SCG’s supporting documents, seeWolff v. Brown , 128 F.3d 682, 685 (8th Cir. 1997) (in employment-discrimination cases, internal documents relied on by employer in making decision are not offered for truth of matter asserted, but instead to explain employer’s conduct), and with the Court’s well-reasoned conclusion that Hudspeth failed to create trial-worthy issues on the merits of her claims against SCG. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
§ 9.12 Supplementation or revision of plan of operations. ( a ) An approved plan of operations may require reasonable revision or supplementation to adjust the plan to changed conditions or to correct oversights. ( 1 ) The Regional Director may initiate an alteration by notifying the operator in writing of the proposed alteration and the justification therefor. The operator shall have thirty (30) days to comment on the proposal.
( 2 ) The operator may initiate an alteration by submitting to the Superintendent a written statement of the proposal, and the justification therefor.
( b ) Any proposal initiated under paragraph (a) of this section by either party shall be reviewed and decided by the Regional Director in accordance with § 9.10. Where the operator believes he has been aggrieved by a decision under this paragraph, he may appeal the decision pursuant to § 9.14.
#### § 1355.50 Purpose.

Sections 1355.50 through 1355.59 contain the requirements a title IV-E agency must meet to receive Federal financial participation authorized under sections 474(a)(3)(C) and (D), and 474(c) of the Act for the planning, design, development, installation, operation, and maintenance of a comprehensive child welfare information system.

[81 FR 35479, June 2, 2016]
#### § 156.901 Definitions.

In this subpart, unless the context indicates otherwise:

*ALJ* means administrative law judge of the Departmental Appeals Board of HHS.

*Filing date* means the date filed electronically.

*Hearing* includes a hearing on a written record as well as an in-person, telephone, or video teleconference hearing.

*Party* means HHS or the respondent.

*Receipt date* means five days after the date of a document, unless there is a showing that it was in fact received later.

*Respondent* means an entity that received a notice of proposed assessment of a civil money penalty issued pursuant to § 156.805 or a notice of decertification pursuant to § 156.810(c) or (d).

[78 FR 65101, Oct. 30, 2013, as amended at 86 FR 24293, May 5, 2021]