alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Documentation of OMB Review Under Executive Order 12866 

Title of Action: 

Docket#: FRL#: RIN:

This action was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order (E.O.) 

12866, titled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Whenever EPA makes publicly available 

a regulatory action that was reviewed under E.O. 12866, section 6(a)(3)(E) of the E.O. directs the Agency to also: 

(1) Make available to the public a copy of the information that was provided to OMB’s Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review under the E.O., i.e., the text of the draft regulatory action and, if applicable, 

an assessment of the potential costs and benefits, as well as additional information for those actions that are 

determined to be economically significant under the E.O. (Information requirements are described in sections 

6(a)(3)(B) and (C)). 

(2) Identify for the public any substantive changes between the draft submitted to OIRA and the action that was 

subsequently issued, using a method that is complete, clear, and simple. 

(3) Identify for the public those substantive changes made at the suggestion or recommendation of OIRA.

For this regulatory action, were substantive changes made to information reviewed under E.O. 

12866? [Please check the appropriate answer.]

No. [In the docket, include the information identified in item (1) below.]

Yes. [In the docket, include the information identified in items (1) – (3) below.]

Accordingly, the Agency has included this form and the following information in the public 

docket for this regulatory action: [Please check the appropriate information.]

(1) A copy of the information that was provided to OIRA for review under the E.O. 

(2) Documentation of any substantive changes made to the draft regulatory text that was 

submitted to OIRA when compared with what was subsequently made publicly available.

The documentation is provided on the pages following this form. Changes made at the 

suggestion or recommendation of OIRA, if any, are clearly identified through attribution to 

OIRA. EPA has used one or more of the following methods to note changes: [Select the 

appropriate option(s).]

(a) Redline-Strikeout – A copy of the draft regulatory action submitted, using redlinestrikeout to show the substantive changes that were made.

(b) Hand Markup – A copy of the draft regulatory action submitted, using handwritten notes 

to show the substantive changes that were made.

(c) Note to the file - A document that identifies the substantive changes that were made, 

with page and paragraph references to the draft regulatory action that was submitted.

If you have any questions about this regulatory action or this documentation, please call the 

contact:

Name: Email: Phone: 

Revised 05/05/2010 

Proposed Rule; Amendments to Rules for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research Involving Intentional

Exposure to a Pesticides

EPA-HQ–OPP–2010–0785 8862-7 RIN 2070–AJ76

Kelly Sherman sherman.kelly@epa.gov 703-305-8401
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-11-0000561

12-MAY-2014

07:55 AM
Case No. 14,240.

#### TUPPER v. The ST. LAWRENCE.

[16 Leg. Int. 317.] 1

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

Sept. 20, 1859.2

Maritime Liens — Repairs—State Statute— 'Domestic Vessel.

[Appeal from the district court of the United States for the Southern district of New York.

*326_ [See Cases Nos. 5,673, 5,675, and 5,077.]

[This was a libel against the steamship St. Lawrence (Lewis H. Meyer and Edward Stucken, claimants) to enforce a lien, under the laws of the state, for supplies furnished by the libelant, William W. Tupper. In the district court a decree was rendered in favor of the libelant (case unreported), from which the claimants appeal.]

J. F. Williams, for libellant.

Beebe, Dean *&*Donohue, for contestants.

In this case the plaintiff, as libellant, filed a libel against the vessel on the 21st of April. 1856. The libel was filed to enforce a domestic lien given by the statute of this state for repairs on the ship. A decree in favor of the libellant was given in the court below, in January, 1858, for the sum of 2,250. At the time of the repairs the vessel was owned by John Graham, but subsequently passed into the hands of Meyer & Stucken, who now appeared as contestants. An appeal was taken to the circuit court.

The counsel for the appellant contended that the federal court, had no jurisdiction to enforce a lien given by the state statute; that the doctrine in the.case of The General Smith [4 Wheat. (17 D. S.) 438], which was, that the federal courts would enforce a lien given by state statute against a vessel, had been overruled, and that therefore the court had no jurisdiction in this case.

1

 [Reprinted by permission ]

2

 [Affirmed in 1 Black (66 U. S.) 522,]

NELSON, Circuit Justice,

held that the doctrine in the case referred to was not an opinion of the court, nor a decision, but simply a rule of law, which the court had power to change, but the United States supreme court had never done so by any decision. That the doctrine held forth in The General Smith was the law of the land until the 1st of May last, but, up to that time, it had remained in full force.

On the 1st of May last, a new rule of the supreme court went into effect, by which the federal court would not, after that time, enforce any domestic lien given by state statute. The decree of the court below was, therefore, affirmed.

This decision is an important one, as it settles a long vexed question.

[Upon an appeal by the claimants to the supreme court, the decree of this court was affirmed, with costs. _ 1 Black (60 U. S.l 522.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION  Each of the undersigned officers of Western Lucrative Enterprises, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies that, to their knowledge, the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment Number One) to which this certification is attached (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    Date: June 30, 2011/s/  Neville PearsonNeville Pearson, Chief Executive Officer
(the Principal Executive Officer)  Date: June 30, 2011/s/  Neville PearsonNeville Pearson, Chief Financial Officer
(the Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)    This certification is being furnished and not filed, and shall not be incorporated into any document for any purpose, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or the Securities Act of 1933.
No. 62379.

#### Halsey Import Company *v.*United States,

protest 317478-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial, a memorandum of the collector, dated June 5, 1958, was offered in evidence, in which he stated that the correct amount of dozens which was subject to duty at the specific rate was 6,462. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the facts set forth in this memorandum were true and correct, the collector was directed to reliquidate the entry, assessing the specific duty of 10 cents per dozen on the basis of 6,462 dozen.
# Official Journal C 14/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.014.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 14 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5617 January 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.014.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 14

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5617 January 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 014/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 1 |
| 2013/C 014/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6662 — Andritz IV/Schuler) (1) | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2013/C 014/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

1

2013/C 014/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6662 — Andritz IV/Schuler) (1)

2

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 014/03 | Euro exchange rates | 3 |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2013/C 014/04 | Special Report No 17/2012 ‘The European Development Fund (EDF) contribution to a sustainable road network in sub-Saharan Africa’ | 4 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2013/C 014/03

Euro exchange rates

3

Court of Auditors

2013/C 014/04

Special Report No 17/2012 ‘The European Development Fund (EDF) contribution to a sustainable road network in sub-Saharan Africa’

4

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Before the Third Division,

November 30, 1967

No. P67/426.

#### International Artware Corp. *v.*United States, protests 66/18482, etc. (Cleveland).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of W. *Kay Company,*In*c.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 2484), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 72522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23188]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4721-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]


Oklahoma; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-4721-DR), dated July 19, 2023, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 7, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Oklahoma is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration 
of July 19, 2023.
    Choctaw and Pawnee Counties for Public Assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-23188 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40271

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANDRES GARCIA-VELA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:12-CR-1678-1

Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Andres Garcia-Vela

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th

Cir. 2011). Garcia-Vela has filed a response. The record is insufficiently

developed to allow consideration at this time of Garcia-Vela’s claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal

when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 3, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 13-40271 Document: 00512488445 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/03/2014
No. 13-40271

existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v.

Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of

the record reflected therein, as well as Garcia-Vela’s response. We concur with

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate

review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-40271 Document: 00512488445 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/03/2014
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 393

Expressing the sense of the Congress in remembrance of the 100th anniversary of the devastating hurricane which struck Galveston, Texas, on

September 8, 1900.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 7, 2000

Mr. LAMPSON submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Government Reform

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress in remembrance of

the 100th anniversary of the devastating hurricane which

struck Galveston, Texas, on September 8, 1900.

Whereas September 8, 2000, marks the 100th anniversary of

the hurricane that struck Galveston, Texas, on September 8, 1900, the deadliest natural disaster in United

States history;

Whereas at the dawn of the 20th century, an estimated 6,000

people in this thriving port of 37,000—dubbed the ‘‘Wall

Street of the West’’—died in a few hours;

Whereas vast waves, surging flood waters, and powerful

winds of more than 120 miles an hour overtook the town,

in an era without radar, satellites, or modern radio, making off-shore hurricanes difficult to track;
2

•HCON 393 IH

Whereas the residents of Galveston Island showed much courage and sacrifice during the tempest, exemplified by 10

nuns who lost their lives, along with the 90 children they

were trying to save at St. Mary’s Orphanage on the

beach;

Whereas Galveston never lost her resilient spirit, but instead

built a sturdy 17-foot seawall that staved off other fierce

hurricanes, pumped in millions of tons of sand from the

Gulf of Mexico in order to raise the level of the city and

its buildings to a safer height, and became a beautiful

and prosperous town yet again;

Whereas the city of Galveston is this year holding a ceremony

commemorating the hurricane, launching education efforts, and celebrating the rebirth of Galveston after the

storm;

Whereas the Nation, which benefits from modern weather

technology and the lessons learned from the Galveston

tragedy, should never cease to improve hurricane forecasting and to make life safer and more secure along the

Nation’s coasts; and

Whereas September 8, 2000, is Galveston Hurricane Remembrance Day: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) recognizes the historical significance of the

4 100th anniversary of the hurricane which devastated

5 Galveston, Texas;

6 (2) remembers the victims of the Galveston hur7 ricane of 1900; and
3

•HCON 393 IH

1 (3) urges the President to issue a proclamation

2 in memory of the thousands of Galvestonians and

3 other Americans who lost their lives in the dev4 astating hurricane of 1900 and the survivors who re5 built Galveston, Texas.

Æ
A89A2080.

#### COLEMAN v. THE STATE.

(391 SE2d 15)

Beasley, Judge.

Defendant appeals his conviction of child molestation, OCGA § 16-6-4.

1. Although the testimony of the minor prosecuting witness was somewhat contradictory and there were conflicts with other evidence offered by the State, viewed in a light favorable to the verdict there was sufficient evidence to authorize a rational trier of fact to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense charged. *Weeks v. State,*187 Ga. App. 307, 308 (1) (370 SE2d 344) (1988); *Hicks v. State,*175 Ga. App. 243, 244 (4) (333 SE2d 113) (1985).

2. Defendant asserts error in permitting the jury, upon request, to view again a videotape of an interview between a police officer and the prosecuting witness.

“Whether or not to grant the jury’s request to rehear portions of the evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge.” *Morris v. State,*254 Ga. 273, 274 (2) (328 SE2d 547) (1985). Defendant failed to carry his burden of showing an abuse of discretion in this instance. *Lumpkin v. State,*182 Ga. App. 505, 506 (4) (356 SE2d 238) (1987); *Haynes v. State,*180 Ga. App. 202 (2) (349 SE2d 208) (1986).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carley, C. J., and McMurray, P. J., concur.*

*405Decided February 5, 1990.

*Hollingsworth & Richardson, W. Gene Richardson,*for appellant.

*Stephen F. Lanier, District Attorney, C. Stephen Cox, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.
# L_2022068EN.01002101.xml

| 3.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 68/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 68/21

---

Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2306 of 21 October 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council with rules on the official controls in respect of consignments of organic products and in-conversion products intended for import into the Union and on the certificate of inspection

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 461 of 27 December 2021
  )

On page 20, in Article 10(1):

for:

‘1.   Where a competent authority, control authority or control body in a third country is notified by the Commission, after the Commission has received a notification from a Member State in accordance with Article 9 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2307 as regards suspected or established non-compliance affecting the integrity of the organic products or in-conversion products in a consignment, it shall carry out an investigation.’,

read:

‘1.   Where a competent authority, control authority or control body in a third country is notified by the Commission, after the Commission has received a notification from a Member State in accordance with Article 7 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2307 as regards suspected or established non-compliance affecting the integrity of the organic products or in-conversion products in a consignment, it shall carry out an investigation.’.

---
From: Don Fairchild <cctskit.com@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:39 AM

To: Land, Eva

Subject: DDC 4

- 71 Retrofit Quote

Attachments: 4

- 71 Retrofit Quote.pdf

Eva;

Attached is the quote for our 4

- 71 Retrofit Kit. Should you have any further questions please

don't hesitate to contact me. Please address all further questions to sales@cctskit.com

.

Don Fairchild

President
I	would	like	an	exemption under	333 to	fly	a	DJI	phantom	2	vision+	below	200	feet

for	the	purpose	of	real	estate	aerial	video	and	also	home/	building	and	or	jobsite inspection. Thank	you, Thomas	A	Tolnai 5133	Elm	St. Skokie,	IL. 60077 Cell#	312
- 513
- 0065 Email	Fishysquirrel@yahoo.com
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Chelsea Therapeutics
International, Ltd. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Nick Riehle, Vice President, Administration
and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|(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 as of, and for, the
periods presented in the Report.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    J. Nick RiehleJ. Nick RiehleVice President, Administration and Chief Financial Officer


March 2, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-29-1997
<CASH>                                          33,779
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  634,621
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,353
<INVENTORY>                                    242,414
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,041,386
<PP&E>                                         467,008
<DEPRECIATION>                                 128,819
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,289,655
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          529,399
<BONDS>                                        745,709
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            28
<OTHER-SE>                                     923,226
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,289,655
<SALES>                                      2,851,133
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,851,133
<CGS>                                        2,172,740
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  580,971
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,192
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 68,230
<INCOME-TAX>                                    30,138
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             39,106
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    39,106
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29
        

</TABLE>