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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         September 21, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 14, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 53 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2023-266, CP2023-269.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-20411 Filed 9-20-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 63102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19884]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas and Oil Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP23-917-002.
    Applicants: Viking Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing--Native File 
Format to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 9/8/23.
    Accession Number: 20230908-5083.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/20/23.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must 
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified 
comment date. The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary 
system (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by 
querying the docket number. eFiling is encouraged. More detailed 
information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, 
service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports 
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission 
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, 
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access 
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For 
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as 
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is 
encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7d322d2d3d1b180f1e531a120b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0e415e5e4e686b7c6d20696178">[email protected]</span></a>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-19884 Filed 9-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

 

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

 

Inconnection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Oak Valley Bancorp (theRegistrant) for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission, the undersigned hereby certify pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
|   | 1) |   | such  Form 10-K 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 such Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the  Registrant. |
|--------|----|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 
| Dated:  March 30, 2009 | */s/ Ronald C. Martin*   |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------|
|                        | Ronald  C. Martin        |
|                        | Chief  Executive Officer |
|                        |                     |
|                        |                     |
| Dated:  March 30, 2009 | */s/ Richard A. McCarty* |
|                        | Richard  A. McCarty      |
|                        | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

 

This certification accompanies each report pursuant to section 906 ofthe Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required bythe Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Registrant for purposesof section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

----
#### Ronald M. BROOKE, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Appellee.

No. 00-1482.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

June 29, 2001.

Before HENDERSON, ROGERS, and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the briefs and appendix filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. *See*Fed. R.App. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the decision of the United States Tax Court is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in its memorandum opinion of June 28, 2000. Appellant’s challenge to appellee’s calculation of appellant’s alternative minimum tax liability has no effect on our conclusion that the decision of the Tax Court should be affirmed.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing *en banc. See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
From: zahranor@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:53:54 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Dean

Leighton, IA 50143
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1510 

Considering the Russian military deployments in the Western Hemisphere 

as reckless, provocative, and in violation of the Monroe Doctrine. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2008 

Mr. MCCOTTER (for himself and Mr. BURTON of Indiana) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period 

to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

RESOLUTION 

Considering the Russian military deployments in the Western 

Hemisphere as reckless, provocative, and in violation of 

the Monroe Doctrine. 

Whereas on September 10, 2008, the Russian Federation 

landed two Tu–160 strategic bombers in the Bolivarian 

Republic of Venezuela; 

Whereas on September 23, 2008, Russia deployed a Kirov 

battle group, containing the Kirov class battlecruiser, 

PETER THE GREAT, the Udaloy II class destroyer, 

ADMIRAL CHABANENKO, and support vessels from 

the Russian Navy’s Northern Fleet to Venezuela to parVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:25 Sep 28, 2008 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR1510.IH HR1510

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1510 IH 

ticipate in joint naval maneuvers with the Venezuelan 

navy; 

Whereas the aforementioned foreign military deployments are 

the first of their kind in the Western Hemisphere since 

the end of the Cold War; 

Whereas on September 25, 2008, Russian Prime Minister 

Vladimir Putin announced Russia is ready to assist Venezuela in developing a nuclear energy program; 

Whereas on December 23, 1823, in light of potential Russian 

interference in the soon to be established Oregon Territory and European designs for the Western Hemisphere, 

President James Monroe articulated what would later become known as the Monroe Doctrine, ‘‘We should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to 

any portion of this hemisphere, as dangerous to our 

peace and safety.’’; and 

Whereas the Monroe Doctrine remains a cornerstone of 

United States foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) considers the Russian military deployments 

3 in the Western Hemisphere as reckless, provocative, 

4 and in violation of the Monroe Doctrine; 

5 (2) calls upon President George W. Bush to fol6 low the well established tradition of Presidents Abra7 ham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, 

8 John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan and strongly 

9 enforce the Monroe Doctrine; 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1510 IH 

1 (3) regards Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez’s 

2 attainment of a nuclear energy program or nuclear 

3 weapons as a grave danger to peace and United 

4 States national interests; and 

5 (4) applauds and recognizes the necessity of the 

6 July 12, 2008, re-establishment of the United States 

7 Fourth Fleet. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1998
<CASH>                                         153,765
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               173,765
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 173,765
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          31,816
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       141,949<F1>
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   173,765
<SALES>                                        305<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               305<F2>
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               8,996
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (8,284)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,284)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.18)
<FN>
(1)  Includes restricted cash
(2)  Interest Income
</FN>


        

</TABLE>
*N.*Y. SUPREME COURT.

#### John P. Kipp agt. Peter Delamater *et al.*

*Consolidation of actions*— *when motion for, should, not be granted—Mortgage foreclosure.*

Where three actions of foreclosure had been commenced, the defendants being the same in each, the mortgage in the first action covering fifty acres of land which, after the execution of this mortgage and the two mortgages affected by the second action, had been sold to L. D., one of the defendants; the two mortgages in the second action covered 150 acres, embracing the lands affected by the mortgage in the first action; the mortgage in the third action covered 100 acres, being part of the land affected by the mortgages in the first and second action, and excluding the portion sold to the defendant L. D.; on motion to consolidate the three actions:

*Held,*that the motion could not be granted for the following reasons: ■ *First.*The authorities are against it (6 *Abbotts New Cases,*69).

*Second.*The proceedings are, *in rerun,*against different pieces of property, and there is no reason why one parcel should bear burdens in the way of costs which belong to another.

*Third.*Rights of individual defendants differ, and one defendant should not bear that which belongs to another.

*Ulster Special*Term,, *November*8, 1879.

Motion to consolidate three actions of foreclosure.

The mortgage in the first action covered fifty acres of land, which, after the execution of this mortgage and the two mortgages affected by the second action, had been sold to the defendant, Lewis Delamater. The second mortgage in the second action covered 150 acres, embracing the land affected by the mortgage in the first action. The mortgage in the third action covered 100 acres, being part of the land affected by the mortgages in the first and second actions and excluding the portion sold to the defendant, Lewis Ddlamater.

The defendants are the same in each action.

*184
      *8. L.*Magoun, for motion,

cited sections 817, 818, 819, *Code of Civil Procedure and*2 *Story’s Eq. Jur.,*1233.

*Cornelius Esselstyn,*for plaintiff,

opposed, cited 2 *Waits Pr.,*555; *Grant*agt. *Spencer; Voorhee’s Code [6th ed.],*336, *note f; Thomas on Mortgages,*268, 269; *Bech*agt. *Ruggles,*6 *Abb. New Cases,*69.

Westbrook, J.

I do not see -how this motion can be granted.

1st. The authorities are against it (6 *Abb. N. C.,*69). 2d. The proceedings are *in rem.*against different pieces of property; and there is no reason why one parcel should bear burdens, in the way of costs, which belong to another. 3d. Eights of individual defendants differ, and one defendant should not bear that which belongs to another.

Motion denied.
|                                                                                                                                                                 |  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|
|                                                                                                                                                                 |  |
| footer>**Contacting EPP | EPP HomeOPPT Home | EPA Home | Search | Comments
Last Revised:  November 5, 1998URL:  http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/epp/supplier.html** |
From: kbuhler1@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:03:05 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Cornelia Buhler

West Chester, PA 19380
From: worktwodo@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:14:17 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

lucy padilla

Schnecksville, PA 18078
#### Mary E. Plass, Appellant, v. George Brusie, Respondent, Impleaded, etc.

Judgment affirmed, with costs Opinion by

Landon, J.