alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
inventory Expert Service

A division of the American Chemical Socie~ P~one: 800-63 I- 1884, 614-447-3600 (ext. 2308)

Fax: 614-447-3747

E-mail: answers@cas.org

INVENTORY EXPERT SERVICE REPORT

IES-ORDER NUMBER: 70139

REGISTRY NUMBER: 474510-57-1

CA INDEX NAME

l-Propanone, l,l’-(methylenedi-4,l-phenylene)bis[2-hydroxy-2-methyl_

Please print the above CA Index Name on the appropriate page of your PMN.

If this box is checked, CAS has made correctlon(s) marked in red to your IES order. Please make the same correctlon(e) to you~ PMN before

submitting it to the EPA.

23.

1540 Olentan~/Rh~ Road P.O. Box 3343 Cotumbu,, Ohio 43210-0334
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 47 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 47

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Justice 
 relating to ``Office of the Attorney General; Home Confinement Under 
   the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 30, 2023

Mrs. Blackburn (for herself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Thune, Mr. Cornyn, Mrs. 
    Capito, Ms. Ernst, Mr. Daines, Mr. Cotton, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. 
   Hagerty, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Risch, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Lee, Mr. Hawley, Mr. 
Hoeven, Mr. Vance, Mr. Budd, Mrs. Britt, Mr. Tillis, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. 
 Marshall, Mr. Rubio, and Mr. Ricketts) introduced the following joint 
 resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Justice 
 relating to ``Office of the Attorney General; Home Confinement Under 
   the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of Justice relating to ``Office of the 
Attorney General; Home Confinement Under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, 
and Economic Security (CARES) Act'' (88 Fed. Reg. 19830 (April 4, 
2023)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

                             CERTIFICATE 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 Current Report of Mobile Reach International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 8K/A as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brian R. Balbirnie, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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.

     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.


December 15th, 2005                         /s/  Brian R. Balbirnie
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Brian R. Balbirnie
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-10031

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SCOTT MATTHEW YOTKA, 

a.k.a. Scottnjaxx44,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 3:21-cr-00106-MMH-JBT-1

USCA11 Case: 23-10031 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 10/05/2023 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 23-10031

____________________

Before WILSON, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Shehnoor Kaur Grewal, appointed counsel for Scott Matthew Yotka in his direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw 

from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent 

review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the 

relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Yotka’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 23-10031 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 10/05/2023 Page: 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.13

     

      

    
      Commitment Letter Regarding Social Insurance and Housing Provident Fund Matters

      The company, as the controlling shareholder of ACM Research (Shanghai), Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the “issuer”), with respect to the
        relevant matters on the issuer’s failure to pay social insurance and housing provident fund for employees in accordance with regulations before the initial public offering of shares and listing on the Science
        and Technology Board, now makes the following commitment:

      1. If the issuer’s employees pursue social insurance or housing provident fund and causes litigation or arbitration as a result, or are subject to administrative punishment by the relevant competent authorities, the enterprise will compensate the issuer in full and bear the responsibility for these matters. All expenses incurred that should be paid
        by the issuer.

      2. If the competent department of labor, social security and housing provident fund require the issuer to make up payment for the
        employee’s social insurance and housing provident fund in the previous year, the enterprise will make up for the issuer on the amount approved by the competent authority.

      3. If the issuer fails to pay social insurance and housing provident funds in accordance with the regulations and incurred any other expenses and economic
        losses, the enterprise will bear all the expenses on behalf of the issuer.

       

      

      (There is no text below on this page)

       

      

      
        
          


      

      (There is no text on this page, it is the signature page of the Commitment Letter Regarding Social Insurance and Housing Provident Fund Matters)

       

      

       

      

      	 	
              ACM RESEARCH, INC.

            
	 	 
	 	 
	 	
              Signature: /s/ Hui Wang

            
	 	 
	 	
              Name: HUI WANG

            
	 	 
	 	
              Title: Authorized representative

            
	 	 
	 	 
	 	
              Date: Year Month Day
#### § 3.43 Removal of property.

A person may not remove Federal property from the enclave or any building on the enclave without a property pass, signed by an authorized property custodian, which specifically describes the items to be removed. In an emergency, or when the property custodian is not available, a police officer may approve removal of Federal property if, after consulting with the administrative officer or other appropriate official, the police officer is authorized by the official to do so. Privately-owned property, other than that ordinarily carried on one's person, may be removed only under this property pass procedure, or upon properly establishing ownership of the property to a police officer.

Packages, briefcases, or other containers brought within the enclave are subject to inspection while on, or being removed from, the enclave.
#### § 2554.38 Are post-hearing briefs required?

The ALJ may require the parties to file post-hearing briefs. In any event, any party may file a post-hearing brief. The ALJ shall fix the time for filing such briefs, not to exceed 60 days from the date the parties receive the transcript of the hearing or, if applicable, the stipulated record. Such briefs may be accompanied by proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The ALJ may permit the parties to file reply briefs.
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of )
) Al17-07
Resubmission: Proposed Final Audit )
Report on Hall for Congress )
CERTIFICATION

I, Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk of the Federal Election
Commission, do hereby certify that on April 24, 2019, the Commission decided
by a vote of 4-0 to approve the Resubmission of the Proposed Final Audit
Report on Hall for Congress, as recommended in the Memorandum from the
Chief Compliance Officer and the Audit Division dated April 19, 2019.

Commissioners Hunter, Petersen, Walther, and Weintraub voted

affirmatively for the decision.

Attest:
Apri | 24,2014 (Q,D CBhuwK >
‘ Date Dayna C. Brown

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission
§ 233.40 Residence. ( a ) *Condition for plan approval.* A State plan under title I, IV-A, X, XIV, or XVI of the Social Security Act may not impose any residence requirement which excludes any individual who is a resident of the State except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. For purposes of this section: ( 1 ) A resident of a State is one: ( i ) Who is living in the State voluntarily with the intention of making his or her home there and not for a temporary purpose. A child is a resident of the State in which he or she is living other than on a temporary basis. Residence may not depend upon the reason for which the individual entered the State, except insofar as it may bear upon whether the individual is there voluntarily or for a temporary purpose; or
( ii ) Who, is living in the State, is not receiving assistance from another State, and entered the State with a job commitment or seeking employment in the State (whether or not currently employed). Under this definition, the child is a resident of the State in which the caretaker is a resident.
( 2 ) Residence is retained until abandoned. Temporary absence from the State, with subsequent returns to the State, or intent to return when the purposes of the absence have been accomplished, does not interrupt continuity of residence.
( b ) *Exception.* A State plan under title I, X, XIV, or XVI need not include an individual who has been absent from the State for a period in excess of 90 consecutive days (regardless of whether the individual has maintained his or her residence in the State during this period) until he or she has been present in the State for a period of 30 consecutive days (or a shorter period specified by the State) in the case of such individual who has maintained residence in the State during such period of absence or for a period of 90 consecutive days (or a shorter period as specified by the State) in the case of any other such individual. An individual thus excluded under any such plan may not, as a consequence of that exclusion, be excluded from assistance under the State's title XIX plan if otherwise eligible under the title XIX plan (see 42 CFR 436.403).
[45 FR 26962, Apr. 22, 1980]
§ 2516.850 What will the Corporation do to evaluate the overall success of the service-learning program? ( a ) The Corporation will conduct independent evaluations. These evaluations will consider the opinions of participants and members of the communities where services are delivered. If appropriate, these evaluations will compare participants with individuals who have not participated in service-learning programs. These evaluations will— ( 1 ) Study the extent to which service-learning programs as a whole affect the involved communities;
( 2 ) Determine the extent to which service-learning programs as a whole increase academic learning of participants, enhance civic education, and foster continued community involvement; and
( 3 ) Determine the effectiveness of different program models.
( b ) The Corporation will also determine by June 30, 1995, whether outcomes of service-learning programs are defined and measured appropriately, and the implications of the results from such a study for authorized funding levels.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHARLES EMMANUEL BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, 

Senior District Judge. (3:99-cr-00154-GCM-1; 3:14-cv-00458-GCM)

Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 23, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Emmanuel Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas A. O’Malley, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Emmanuel Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the 

notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, 

the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after 

the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on 

October 21, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on June 17, 

2015.* Because Brown failed to file a timely notice of appeal or 

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

 * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 

(1988). 
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
From: Richard Parker [mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 5:48 PM 

To: rick.anderson@faypwc.com; tballo@earthjustice.org; ScottB@LVMetals.com; john.caskey@nema.org; 

jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com; john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; adelaski@standardsASAP.org; 

Teckman@nwcouncil.org; gbf1@pge.com; carlos.gaytan@ge.com; rgreeson@federalpacific.com; 

bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com; jhodge@howard.com; mhyland@appanet.org; dave.millure@metglas.com; 

snadel@aceee.org; wes.patterson@us.abb.com; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; 

Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com; srosenstock@eei.org; rroy@nrdc.org; robert.saint@nreca.coop; 

chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; mark.stoering@xcelenergy.com; cabolduc@lbl.gov; kcoughlin@lbl.gov; 

Brian Coffey; richardparkerdc@gmail.com; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov; Michael Rivest; jrossetti@mlgw.org; 

Jim.creevy@nema.org 

Subject: Distribution Transformer Rulemaking: Agenda for tomorrow's meeting: Draft Rules of 

Procedure 

Dear Colleagues, 

Attached please find a draft agenda for tomorrow's meeting and draft Rules of Procedure for the 

MV Group. Both are intended to serve as basis for discussion tomorrow. The Draft Rules of 

Procedure are adapted from rules used in other negotiated rulemakings and reflect fairly standard 

practice, but obviously each group must decide for itself what arrangements seem most 

practicable for its circumstances. Ditto for the first-meeting draft agenda. 

My apologies for the very short notice in getting these documents to you. I will bring copies to 

the meeting tomorrow and make sure that you have adequate time to review and deliberate on the 

draft rules (which are quite simple) before you are asked to vote on whether to adopt or modify 

or table them. 

Please review the addressees briefly and forward this message to any alternate or other interested 

person who may have been inadvertently overlooked. 

I look forward to seeing all of you tomorrow morning at 9. 

All best, 

Richard Parker
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41269

In the Matter of: DANIS R. TUCKER, d/b/a 

Ralph’s Foods Company, 

Debtor,

* * * * * 

TYLER TUCKER,

Appellant,

VERSUS

MICHAEL BOUDLOCHE,

Appellee,

* * * * * *

In the Matter of: DANIS R. TUCKER, d/b/a

Ralph’s Foods Company,

Debtor,

* * * * * *

HELEN TUCKER, TYLER TUCKER, NEVADA SPICE DISTRIBUTING 

CORPORATION,

 Appellants,

v.

MARY ALICE GARAY, MICHAEL BOUDLOCHE, Trustee,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(C-97-CV-306)

March 3, 2000 
 

*Circuit Judge of the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

 

**Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2

Before DAVIS, HALL* and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:**

After considering the record, the briefs and argument of

counsel, we are persuaded 11 U.S.C. § 363(m) controls this appeal

and that it is moot. The only ruling appellants sought in the

bankruptcy court and the district court was a determination that

they owned the vehicles in question. Because the vehicles have

been sold at public auction to a good faith purchaser, we are

unable to grant that relief. The appellant did not seek any other

remedies in the bankruptcy court or the district court and we will

not consider arguments made for the first time on appeal. 

AFFIRMED.
§ 309.20 Who submits a Tribal IV-D program application and where? ( a ) The authorized representative of the Tribe or Tribal organization must sign and submit the Tribal IV-D program application.
( b ) Applications must be submitted to the Office of Child Support Enforcement, Attention: Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement , with a copy to the appropriate regional office.
[69 FR 16672, Mar. 30, 2004, as amended at 85 FR 35208, June 9, 2020]
RE: Draft Final Audit Report on the Kansas Democratic Party 

Neil P. Reiff <reiff@sandlerreiff.com> 

Thu 11/ 10/2016 1:24 PM 

To Camil la Reminsky <creminsky@fec.gov> ; Kerry Gooch < kerry@kansasdems.org> ; 

c Nicole Burgess <nburgess@fec.gov>; 

Camilla, we have no additional comments at this time and will not be requesting a hearing. 

Neil P. Reiff 

Sandler, Reiff, Lamb, Rosenstein & Birkenstock, P.C. 

1025 Vermont Ave, NW 

Suite 300 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

w. (202) 479 - 1111 

f. (202) 479 - 1115 

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is 

privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or any employee or 

agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, 

or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us 

immediately by email. Thank you for your cooperation. 

IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax 

advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for 

the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another 

party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
#### Robert Auerbach, Appellant, *v.*Charles Curie, Respondent.

*Auerbach*v. *Curie,*133 App. Div. 945, appeal dismissed.

(Submitted February 7, 1910;

decided February 15, 1910.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 13, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor, of defendant entered upon a verdict directed by the court in an action to recover for services alleged to have been rendered.

The motion was made upon the grounds that the action was one for services, the judgment of affirmance unanimous and permission to appeal had not been obtained.

*W. Wickham Smith*and *Charles Curie, Jr.,*for motion.

*J. Stewart Ross*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

         Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned Principal Executive Officer of Flexible Solutions International,
Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A (Amendment No. 1) of the Company for the
quarter ended June 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 the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ DANIEL B. O'BRIEN
Daniel B. O'Brien
President and Chief Executive Officer

September 21, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 8, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 65456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9108]



[[Page 65456]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Allegheny National Forest, Pennsylvania, Brush Creek Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Cancellation of notice of intent to prepare an environmental 
impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Allegheny National Forest is canceling its published 
notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for the 
Brush Creek Project on the Marienville Ranger District (FR Document 99-
5430, March 4, 1999) published in the Federal Register, Volume 64, No. 
43, Friday March 5, 1999, pages 10618-19 and (FR Document 03-5253 filed 
March 6, 2003) published in the Federal Register, Volume 68, No. 45, 
Friday March 7, 2003, pages 11033-35. This project has been started and 
delayed twice. It has now been redesigned and the level of impact is no 
longer anticipated to require an Environment Impact Statement. An 
Environmental Assessment will be prepared to determine whether an 
Environmental Impact Statement is needed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Treese, District NEPA 
Coordinator, Marienville Ranger District, HC 2 Box 130, Marienville, PA 
16239 or by telephone at 814-927-6628.

Responsible Official

    Robert T. Fallon, District Ranger, Marienville Ranger District, HC 
2 Box 130, Marienville, PA 16239 or by telephone at 814-927-6628.

    Dated: October 26, 2006.
Kathleen S. Morse,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 06-9108 Filed 11-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M