alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.                  

###### Department of Justice

                    In accordance with Department Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in                     *United States*                     v.                     *Milner,*                     No. C01-0809RBL, was lodged with the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on October 12, 2006.                 

This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the United States against Donald C. Walker and Gloria Walker, pursuant to Sections 301(a) and 404 of Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1311(a) & 1344, and Section 10 of the Rivers & Harbors (Act) (RHA), 33 U.S.C. 403, to obtain injunctive relief from and impose civil penalties against the Defendants for violating the CWA by discharging pollutants without a permit into waters of the United States, and the RHA by constructing a structure in navigable waters. The proposed Consent decree resolved these allegations by requiring the Defendants to perform mitigation and to pay a civil penalty. 

                    The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Please address comments to John McKay, United States Attorney, 5220 United States Courthouse, 700 Stewart Street, Seattle, WA 98101-1271, and refer to                     *United States*                     v.                     *Milner,*                     DJ #90-5-1-1-16918.                 

                    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, 1717 Pacific Avenue, Room 3100, Tacoma, WA 98402. In addition, the proposed Consent Decree may be viewed at                     *http://www/​usdoj.gov/​enrd/​open.html.*

Russell M. Young, 

Assistant Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 06-9125 Filed 11-8-06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
# EUR-Lex - 12002E215 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 12002E215

**Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version) - Part Five: Institutions of the Community - Title I: Provisions governing the institutions - Chapter 1: The institutions - Section 3: The Commission - Article 215 - Article 159 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version) - Article 159 - EEC Treaty **

*
Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0121 - 0121 Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0268 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0060 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available) *

Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version)

Part Five: Institutions of the Community

Title I: Provisions governing the institutions

Chapter 1: The institutions

Section 3: The Commission

Article 215

Article 159 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version)

Article 159 - EEC Treaty

Article 215

Apart from normal replacement, or death, the duties of a Member of the Commission shall end when he resigns or is compulsorily retired.

A vacancy caused by resignation, compulsory retirement or death shall be filled for the remainder of the Member's term of office by a new Member appointed by the Council, acting by a qualified majority. The Council may, acting unanimously, decide that such a vacancy need not be filled.

In the event of resignation, compulsory retirement or death, the President shall be replaced for the remainder of his term of office. The procedure laid down in Article 214(2) shall be applicable for the replacement of the President.

Save in the case of compulsory retirement under Article 216, Members of the Commission shall remain in office until they have been replaced or until the Council has decided that the vacancy need not be filled, as provided for in the second paragraph of this Article.
This table was generated on 8/25/20.

Rank ID # Committee Amount

1 C00110338 AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $2,747,823

2 C00349746 CALIFORNIA DAIRIES, INC. FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $470,182

3 C00001388 DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE; AKA DFA-PAC $424,282

4 C00326389 SNAKE RIVER SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $365,331

5 C00166348 SOUTHERN MINNESOTA BEET SUGAR COOPERATIVE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $330,759

6 C00009423 LAND O'LAKES, INC., PAC $299,273

7 C00040881 OHIO ACTION COMMITTEE FOR RURAL ELECTRIFICATION (ACRE)/OHIO RURAL ELECTRIC COO $202,383 

8 C00164939 MINN-DAK FARMERS COOPERATIVE SUGAR PAC (MDSPAC) $201,980

9 C00254656 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF FLORIDA (PAC) $166,904

10 C00146605 FARMERS' RICE COOPERATIVE FUND $113,621

11 C00359984 SOUTHEAST MILK INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $78,167

12 C00080135 BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $77,572

13 C00008169 ACTION COMMITTEE FOR RURAL ELECTRIFICATION/MISSOURI COOPERATIVES (FKA MISSOUR $64,902

14 C00099002 SUNKIST GROWERS, INC. PAC - FEDERAL $60,047

15 C00220053 RICELAND FOODS, INC. PAC $57,720

16 C00103978 INDIANA ACRE/INDIANA STATEWIDE ASSN OF RECS INC -DBA INDIANA ELECTRIC COOPS $53,416

17 C00352674 GREAT RIVER ENERGY ACTION TEAM (GREAT) $48,454

18 C00185686 SOUTH TEXAS SUGAR CANE PRODUCERS PAC RIO GRANDE VALLEY SUGAR GROWERS, INC $47,388

19 C00133561 OKLAHOMA ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES-ACRE $46,807

20 C00207308 AG PROCESSING INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, AGPAC $45,913

21 C00330696 ASSOCIATED MILK PRODUCERS INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $36,344

22 C00360610 SECURITY SERVICE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION PAC $32,122

23 C00022756 DARIGOLD POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE FKA NORTH PACIFIC DAIRY $28,794

24 C00220558 ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP FEDERAL PAC $25,000

25 C00220269 BASIN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (BASIN ELECTRIC PA $23,708

26 C00141242 AGRI-MARK INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $22,115

27 C00508309 INDEPENDENT PHARMACY COOPERATIVE PAC ('IPC PAC') $20,614

28 C00085019 ARIZONA DAIRYMEN POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ADPAC) $20,570

29 C00096594 MICHIGAN MILK PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $15,305

30 C00152272 PLAINS COTTON COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION EMPLOYEES' POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $15,206

31 C00326132 TRULIANT FCU PAC $10,847

32 C00414169 BERKELEY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. EMPLOYEE PAC $10,476

33 C00363069 MARYLAND & VIRGINIA MILK PRODUCERS COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION INC POLITICAL ACTIO $5,346

34 C00410597 SIOUXLAND ENERGY & LIVESTOCK COOPERATIVE PAC $4,125

35 C00526194 QUAD COUNTY CORN PROCESSORS COOPERATIVE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $2,750

36 C00627992 CALIFORNIA ALMOND INDUSTRY PAC FEDERAL, SPONSORED BY THE ALMOND ALLIANCE OF $2,300

*Only 35 Cooperative PACs have reported receipts. 

Top 50* Cooperative PACs by Receipts

January 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020

PAC Table 10a
Exhibit
32.1








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002





In
connection with the Amendment Number 1 to the Annual Report of Art Design, Inc.
(the Company") on Form 10-KSB/A 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:
July 30, 2008








By:
            /s/Kathy
      SheehanKathy
      Sheehan
              Chief
      Executive Officer
              Chief
      Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

Certification of Chief Executive Officer 

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

 

I, Thomas G. Klopack, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ACLARA BioSciences, Inc: 

 

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 suchstatements 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 theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers 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 suchdisclosure 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, particularlyduring the periods 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 thisreport based on such evaluation; and 

 

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

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers 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 the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 9, 2004
|Exhibit 32.1
|------------

|CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|In connection with the
Quarterly Report of PepsiAmericas, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended April 3, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Robert C. Pohlad, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive 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 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 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.
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Dated: | May 11, 2004 | By: | /s/ ROBERT C. POHLAD                                             
|------ | ------------ | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|       |              |     |                                                                  
|       |              |     | Robert C. Pohlad                                                 
|       |              |     | Chairman of the Board and
                Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6231

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GERALDO ORE, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-97-449, CA-99-629-AM) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 18, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Geraldo Ore, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Ellen Perkins, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Vincent J. Falvo, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Geraldo Ore seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and findno reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Ore , Nos. CR-97-449; CA-99-629-AM (E.D. Va. Jan. 7, 2000). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T SABINO VELASQUEZ- GO NZALEZ , a. k. a. S abi no M on t i el -V el as qu ez , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E RJ r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 75092 A ge nc yN o. A 077- 343- 295 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ay25, 2010** B e f o r e : C A N B Y , T H O M A S , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . S abi no V e l a s que z - G onz a l e z , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

or r e v ie w o f

th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e ope n ba s e d on i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t anc e of

c ouns e l . O urj ur i s di c t i on i s gove rne d by 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to 

# FI LED JU N 07 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 75092 2 reo p en , an drev i ew d e n o v o qu est i o n s o f l aw , i n cl u d i n g cl ai m s o f du e p ro cess v io la tio n s du e to in e f

f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e o f

c o u n s e l. Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 400 F . 3d 785, 791- 92 ( 9th C i r . 2005) . W e de nyi n partand di s m i s s i n partthe pe t i t i on f o rr e v ie w . T h e B IA d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n ind en yin g V elas qu ez -G o n za lez’s m ot i on t o reopen b ec ause the m ot i on w as fi l ed ov era y ear a ft erthe B IA ’ s M ar ch 2 0 , 2 0 0 6 , o r d e rd is m is s in g h is u n d e r ly in g ap p e a l, se e 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( c ) ( 2) , and V el as qu ez -G on za l ez fa i l ed t o d em on strat e thathe ac t ed w i th the du e di l i gence r e qui r e d f

ore qui t abl e t ol l i ng, s e e I tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 32 1 F . 3d 88 9, 89 7 (9th C i r. 2003) ( e qui t abl e t ol l i ng a va i l abl e “ w he n ape t i t i one ri s pr e ve nt e d f r om f i l i ng be c aus e of

de c e pt i on, f

r aud, ore rr or , a s l ong a s the pe t i t i one ra c t s w i th due di l i gence”) . W e la c kju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w V e la s qu e z - G o n z a le z ’s c o n te n tio n th a t h e is el i gi bl e f or as ylum and h i s r equestt o w i thd raw hi s app l i cat i on for vol un t ary d e p artu r e b e c au s e h e f

a ile dto e x h au s t th e s e c la im s b e f o r e th e B I A . See B arron v. A s h c r o ft , 35 8 F . 3d 67 4, 67 8 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). W e r e je c t V e la s q u e z - G o n z a le z ’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s . P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.
Circuit Court for Prince George’s County

Case No. CAL18

- 18171

Argued: January 7, 2019

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

OF MARYLAND

No. 39

September Term, 2018

PATRICIA MOORE

v.

FERNWOOD MOBILE HOME PARK, INC.

Barbera, C.J.

Greene

McDonald

Watts

Hotten

Getty

Wilner, Alan M.

, (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned)

JJ.

ORDER

Filed: January 8 , 2019Patricia Moore, * I N T HE

Petitioner

* C OURT OF A PPEALS

v.

* OF M ARYLAND

Fernwood Mobile Home Park, Inc.

Respondent * No. 39

* September Term, 2018

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

ORDER

Whereas, a petition for writ of certiorari having been filed by Petitioner and granted

by this Court with a writ of certiorari being issued on October 2, 2018;

Whereas, Petitioner having filed a timely opening brief in this appeal and

Respondent having fa iled to file a responsive brief or sought an extension of time to do so;

Whereas, Counsel for Respondent having moved to withdraw his appearance in this

matter on December 13, 2018 on the basis of Respondent’s belief that the appeal was moot;

Whereas, P etitioner having moved to preclude Respondent from filing a brief on the

basis that Respondent failed to timely file a brief in this appeal;

Whereas, this Court issued an Order on January 4, 201 9 in which it denied

Respondent’s motion of Counsel to withdr aw his appearance, granted Petitioner’s motion

to bar Respondent from filing a brief, and limited oral argument to the issue of the current

procedural posture and the appropriate disposition of the case;Whereas, the Court held oral argument on Monday, Ja nuary 7, 2019, and heard

arguments from both parties,

Now, therefore, it is this 8th day of January, 2019

,

ORDERED , by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that this case be, and it is hereby,

remanded to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County with i nstructions to dismiss the

appeal to that court as moot, and it is further

ORDERED , that the Respondent shall pay the costs in this Court and the Circuit

Court. Mandate to issue forthwith.

/s/ Mary Ellen Barbera

Chief Judge
§ 158.402 Audits. ( a ) *Notice of Audit.* HHS will provide 30 days advance notice of its intent to conduct an audit of an issuer.
( b ) *Conferences.* All audits will include an entrance conference at which the scope of the audit will be presented and an exit conference at which the initial audit findings will be discussed.
( c ) *Preliminary Audit Findings.* HHS will share its preliminary audit findings with the issuer, which will then have 30 days to respond to such findings. HHS may extend, for good cause, the time for an issuer to submit such a response.
( d ) *Final Audit Findings.* If the issuer does not dispute the preliminary findings, the audit findings will become final. Alternatively, if the issuer responds to the preliminary findings, HHS will review and consider such response and finalize the audit findings.
( e ) *Corrective actions.* HHS will send a copy of the final audit findings to the issuer as well as any corrective actions that issuer must undertake as a result of the audit findings.
( f ) *Order to pay rebates.* If HHS determines as the result of an audit that an issuer has failed to pay rebates it is obligated to pay pursuant to this part, it may order the issuer to pay those rebates, together with interest from the date the rebates were due, in accordance with § 158.240(d) of this part.
#### Wallace *et al.*v. American Linen Thread Company, appellants.

*Practice—appealaUe order.*

An order refusing to grant a commission to take the testimony of a foreign witness affects a substantial right, and is appealable.

*Treadwell*v. *Pomeroy, ante,*p. 470, distinguished.

Appeal from an order of the special term denying a motion for a commission to take the testimony of a foreign witness. The facts appear sufficiently in the opinion.

*John Cochrane,*for appellant.

*JE. F. Bullard,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

We are of opinion that an order denying a motion for a commission to-take the testimony of a foreign witness is appeal-able. Such an order affects a substantial right. The denial of the application may prevent the party from establishing his case or defense by depriving him of the only means of getting his evidence before the court. We held in *Treadwell*v. *Pomeroy, ante,*page 470, decided-at the present term, that an order granting, a commission is not appealable, but the distinction is obvious. The granting of a commission cannot affect prejudicially a substantial right, because no party can be said to have such a right to prevent his antagonist from obtaining, in the ordinary forms of law, the testimony of witnesses whom he is unable to produce personally upon a trial. In this case the court denied the motion on the ground that the testimony sought was irrelevant. If it were clearly so, the discretion of the court would have been properly exercised. But we are of opinion that the testimony would not be wholly irrelevant. It might be important on the question of damages, and its admissibility for other purposes may depend upon the circumstances arising in the course of the trial. The discretion of the court is a judicial one, and is liable to be reviewed. The order should be reversed with $10 costs of-the appeal and disbursements therein, and the order for commission granted.

*Order reversed.*
#### § 12.15 Reports to Congress.

The Secretary will make such reports of real property disposal activities as are required by section 203 of the Act and such other reports as may be required by law.