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

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 456 

Expressing the sense of the Senate on the discussion by the North Atlantic 

Council of secure, sustainable, and reliable sources of energy. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 1, 2006 

Mr. LUGAR submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Relations 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate on the discussion by 

the North Atlantic Council of secure, sustainable, and 

reliable sources of energy. 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that— 

2 (1) the President should place on the agenda 

3 for discussion at the North Atlantic Council, as soon 

4 as practicable, the merits of establishing a policy 

5 and strategy for the North Atlantic Treaty Organi6 zation to promote the security of members of the Or7 ganization through the development of secure, sus8 tainable, and reliable sources of energy; and 

9 (2) the President should submit to Congress a 

10 report that sets forth— 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 456 IS

1 (A) the actions the United States has 

2 taken to place the matter referred to in para3 graph (1) on the agenda for discussion at the 

4 North Atlantic Council; 

5 (B) the position of the United States on 

6 the matter, as communicated to the North At7 lantic Council by the representatives of the 

8 United States to the Council; 

9 (C) a summary of the debate on the mat10 ter at the North Atlantic Council, including any 

11 decision that has been reached with respect to 

12 the matter by the Council; and 

13 (D) a strategy for the North Atlantic 

14 Treaty Organization to develop secure, sustain15 able, and reliable sources of energy, including 

16 contingency plans if current energy resources 

17 are put at risk. 

Æ 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62947-62948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24969]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Notice of Request for Information (RFI) Re: Photovoltaic Module 
Recycling

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of request for information.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) today gives notice of a request 
for information regarding the possible technical areas of research in 
the area of photovoltaic module recycling. DOE intends to understand 
the current state of recycling technology and the areas of research 
that could lead to impactful recycling technologies to support the 
developing photovoltaic industry. The intent of this RFI is to generate 
discussion related to planning for the end of life of photovoltaic 
modules and to create a list of high impact research topics in 
photovoltaics recycling. Details regarding the RFI and instructions for 
submitting responses to the RFI can be found at the following

[[Page 62948]]

URL address: https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/.

DATES:  Responses to this RFI must be received by November 14, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The RFI and instructions for submitting responses to the RFI 
can be found at the following URL address: https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions may be directed to_pv-
recycling-rfi@ee.doe.gov.

    Issued in Washington, on October 14, 2014.
Marie Mapes,
Program Manager, Solar Energy Technologies Office.
[FR Doc. 2014-24969 Filed 10-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Daniel L. Parks, Chief Financial Officer of United States Antimony Corporation (the "Company") do 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:





This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
By:
/s/ Daniel L. ParksDaniel L. ParksChief Financial Officer
|  |   | EY Audit SpA

Avda. Presidente Riesco 5435, piso 4, Santiago

  |   |   | Tel: +56 (2) 2676 1000

www.eychile.cl

 

 

 

  |   |
|--|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (No. 333-223044) of Enel Chile S.A and in the related Prospectus of our reports dated April 25, 2018, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Enel Chile S.A. and subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Enel Chile S.A. and subsidiaries, included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2017.

 

 

 

|                                                                                                              |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ EY Audit SpA.                 |
| EY Audit SpA.                                                                                                     |
|                                                                                                              |
| Santiago, Chile                                                                                                   |
| April 25, 2018                                                                                               |
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6334

LEONARD CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versusCOMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; R. A. YOUNG, Regional Administrator; A. D. ROBINSON, Warden; KEITH DAVIS, AWP; B. L. JOHNSON, TreatmentPrograms Supervisor; UNKNOWN PINCHBECK, Counselor; C. W. FITZGERALD; V. L. FOSTER; A. W.GRAHAM, Counselor; SCOTT L. LAMBERT, Counselor; D. CHAFLIN, Counselor; J. WOODSON, Counselor, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-558)
Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 27, 1998
Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leonard Carter, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) action. The district court’s order of dismissal is not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers’ Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). A dismissal without prejudice is final if “no amendment [to the complaint] could cure defects in the plaintiff’s case.” Id. at 1067 (citation omitted). In ascertaining whether a dismissal without prejudice is reviewable in this court, the court must determine “whether the plaintiff could save his action by merely amending the complaint.” Id. at 1066-67.Appellant could refile his complaint once he has particularized his complaint, as directed by the district court. We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because we find the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice is not appealable.We deny Carter’s motions for appointment of counsel, to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, for a jury trial, and for production of documents. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 10720 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ARNULFO DAVILA, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:04 -CR- 194 -1

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Arnulfo Davila, federal prisoner # 32490

- 177, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion. He contends that the district court erred in failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors before denying his motion and in failing to consider the applicable guidelines range. T he district court sentenced Davila to 300 months of imprisonment based on his binding agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 6, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Cl erk Case: 16-10720 Document: 00514021994 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/06/2017No. 16

- 10720

2 11(c)(1)(C). Davila’s plea agreement did not call for him to be sent enced within a particular g uidelines range, nor did it indicate that the basis for the specified term was a g uidelines range applicable to his offense. See Freeman v. United States , 564 U.S. 522, 534

- 40 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concurring); United States v. Benitez , 822 F.3d 807, 8 09

- 12 (5th Cir. 2016). Additionally, the plea agreement did not explicitly employ a particular guidelines range to establish the term of imprisonment. See Benitez , 822 F.3d at 811. Thus, Davila was not eligible for a reduction because his sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(2) ; see Benitez , 822 F.3d at 8 11

- 12

. T he district court’s denial of a sentence reduction is, therefore, AFFIRMED. See Benitez , 822 F.3d at 809

- 12 ; Di llon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 826- 27 (2010). Case: 16-10720 Document: 00514021994 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/06/2017
# Official Journal C 180/13 J

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 180 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4713 July 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 180

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4713 July 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 180/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2004/C 180/2 | Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People's Republic of China | 2 |
| 2004/C 180/3 | Initiation of proceedings (Case No COMP/M.3431 — SONOCO/AHLSTROM/JV) (
  1
  ) | 6 |
| 2004/C 180/4 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case No COMP/M.3439 — AGFA / LASTRA) (
  1
  ) | 7 |
| 2004/C 180/5 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.1859 — ENI / GALP) (
  1
  ) | 8 |
| 2004/C 180/6 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.3375 — STATOIL / SDS) (
  1
  ) | 8 |
| 2004/C 180/7 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.3388 — FORD MOTOR COMPANY LTD / POLAR MOTOR GROUP LTD) (
  1
  ) | 9 |
| 2004/C 180/8 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.3374 — SR TECHNICS / FLS AEROSPACE) (
  1
  ) | 9 |
| 2004/C 180/9 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.3403 — JP MORGAN / BANK ONE) (
  1
  ) | 10 |
| 2004/C 180/10 | Appointment of members of the Group of Experts to advise the Commission on a strategy for dealing with accidents in the transport sector | 11 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2004/C 180/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2004/C 180/2

Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People's Republic of China

2

2004/C 180/3

Initiation of proceedings (Case No COMP/M.3431 — SONOCO/AHLSTROM/JV) (
  1
  )

1

6

2004/C 180/4

Prior notification of a concentration (Case No COMP/M.3439 — AGFA / LASTRA) (
  1
  )

1

7

2004/C 180/5

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.1859 — ENI / GALP) (
  1
  )

1

8

2004/C 180/6

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.3375 — STATOIL / SDS) (
  1
  )

1

8

2004/C 180/7

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.3388 — FORD MOTOR COMPANY LTD / POLAR MOTOR GROUP LTD) (
  1
  )

1

9

2004/C 180/8

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.3374 — SR TECHNICS / FLS AEROSPACE) (
  1
  )

1

9

2004/C 180/9

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No COMP/M.3403 — JP MORGAN / BANK ONE) (
  1
  )

1

10

2004/C 180/10

Appointment of members of the Group of Experts to advise the Commission on a strategy for dealing with accidents in the transport sector

11

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
# C_2017277EN.01000901.xml

| 21.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Mohammad Zadeh Khorassani v Kathrin Pflanz

(Case C-678/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/39/EC - Markets in financial instruments - Article 4(1)(2) - Definition of ‘investment services’ - point 1 of Section A of Annex I - Reception and transmission of orders in relation to one or more financial instruments - Potential inclusion of brokering with a view to concluding a portfolio management contract))

(2017/C 277/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mohammad Zadeh Khorassani

Applicant:

Defendant: Kathrin Pflanz

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1)(2) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments, amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC, read in conjunction with point 1 of Section A of Annex I to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the investment service consisting in the reception and transmission of orders in relation to one or more financial instruments does not include brokering with a view to concluding a contract covering portfolio management services.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.

1

---
Case No. 9,939.

#### MUNROE v. MANDEVILLE et al.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 187.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1819.

Notes — Demand of Payment — Pkotest—Notice.

A demand of payment of a note on the third day of grace, after bank hours, and notice to the indorser and protest on the same day, are not too soon, if the note is in bank for collection, and the maker has been notified thereof; such being the usage of the banks.

Assumpsit [by Munroe’s executors] against the defendants [R. & J. Mandeville], as in-dorsers of J. P. Caldwell’s promissory note. The note was deposited in a bank in Alexandria, for collection. The maker had notice, before the expiration of the days of grace, that it was so deposited. Payment was demanded of the maker, after bank hours on the third day of grace, and notice given to the defendants, on the same day, that the maker had not paid. The general usage to deposit notes in the bank, for collection, was known by the defendants, and that bank hours closed at 3 o’clock p. *m.*The note was not made payable at any bank. It was protested on the third day of grace,# after the demand and notice aforesaid.

Mr. Taylor, for plaintiffs,

had cited Parker v. Gordon, 7 East, 385.

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent),

after taking time to consider till the next term, rendered judgment for the plaintiffs, upon the case stated.
# Official Journal C 364/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.364.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 364 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5523 November 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.364.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 364

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5523 November 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Preparatory acts |
| | COURT OF AUDITORS |
| 2012/C 364/01 | Opinion No 7/2012 concerning a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council introducing, on the occasion of the accession of Croatia, special temporary measures for the recruitment of officials and temporary staff of the European Union (pursuant to Article 336, TFEU) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Preparatory acts

COURT OF AUDITORS

2012/C 364/01

Opinion No 7/2012 concerning a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council introducing, on the occasion of the accession of Croatia, special temporary measures for the recruitment of officials and temporary staff of the European Union (pursuant to Article 336, TFEU)

(pursuant to Article 336, TFEU)

1

---

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

EN
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

MATTHEW CRAIG , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 15

- 706

[ July 29, 2015 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Samantha Feuer

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2009

- CF

- 012402

- AXXXMB

.
Matthew Craig, Wewahitchka, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed. See Smith v. State , 40 Fla. L. Weekly D738 (Fla. 4th DCA March 25, 2015).

C IKLIN , C.J., L EVINE and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Case: 2:13-cv-00081-EAS-TPK Doc #: 19 Filed: 01/06/14 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-07T18:21:48-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
# Official Journal C 197A/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.197.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 197A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5610 July 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.197.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 197A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5610 July 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Parliament |
| 2013/C 197A/01 | Recruitment notice PE/167/S | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Parliament

2013/C 197A/01

Recruitment notice PE/167/S

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 27 | (RO) |
| 29 | |
| 33 | |
| 34 | |
| 36 | (DA) |
| 41 | (BG) |
| 43 | (EN) |
| 49 | (ET) |
| 50 | (HU) |
| 51 | (SL) |
| 54 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 58 | (EN/GA) |
| 75 | |
| 81 | |
| 82 | |
| 88 | (BG) |
| 89 | (CS) |
| 94 | |
| 104 | |
| 109 | |
| 111 | |
| 112 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 117 | (ET) |
| 118 | |
| 120 | |
| 131 | |
| 143 | |
| 160 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 162 | |
| 166 | |
| 167 | |
| 168 | |
| 172 | |
| 173 | |
| 174 | |
| 176 | (BG/DE/EN/ET/FI/IT/LT/LV/MT/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV) |
| 180 | (MT) |
| 182 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 183 | (IT) |
| 191 | |
| 192 | |
| 193 | |
| 194 | |
| 196 | |
| 197 | |

5

27

(RO)

29

33

34

36

(DA)

41

(BG)

43

(EN)

49

(ET)

50

(HU)

51

(SL)

54

(DE/EN/FR)

58

(EN/GA)

75

81

82

88

(BG)

89

(CS)

94

104

109

111

112

(DE/EN/FR)

117

(ET)

118

120

131

143

160

(DE/EN/FR)

162

166

167

168

172

173

174

176

(BG/DE/EN/ET/FI/IT/LT/LV/MT/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV)

180

(MT)

182

(DE/EN/FR)

183

(IT)

191

192

193

194

196

197

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

EN
Hogan Lovells US LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in the District of Columbia. “Hogan Lovells” is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells US

LLP and Hogan Lovells International LLP, with offices in: Abu Dhabi Alicante Amsterdam Baltimore Beijing Berlin Brussels Caracas Colorado Springs Denver

Dubai Dusseldorf Frankfurt Hamburg Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Hong Kong Houston London Los Angeles Madrid Miami Milan Moscow Munich New York

Northern Virginia Paris Philadelphia Prague Rome San Francisco Shanghai Silicon Valley Singapore Tokyo Ulaanbaatar Warsaw Washington DC Associated

offices: Budapest Jeddah Riyadh Zagreb. For more information see www.hoganlovells.com

\\DC - 036787/000001 - 3443606 v1

Hogan Lovells US LLP

Columbia Square

555 Thirteenth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20004

T +1 202 637 5600

F +1 202 637 5910

www.hoganlovells.com

July 6, 2012

By Electronic Mail

Ms. Esta Rosenberg

Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division

Office of International Aviation

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Request of Frontier Airlines, Inc. for Conversion of Authorized Service

(DEN-ZIH), Dockets DOT-OST-2011-0076 and 2005-22228

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

On behalf of Frontier Airlines, Inc., we have polled the U.S. carrier representatives served

with the above-referenced Request filed on June 28, 2012, and no carrier has objected to the relief

sought therein.

Sincerely,

Patrick R. Rizzi

Counsel

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com

D +1 202 637 5659

Counsel for Frontier Airlines, Inc.

cc: bob.kneisley@wnco.com; marshall.sinick@squiresanders.com; carl.nelson@aa.com;

robert.wirick@aa.com; francis.heil@aa.com; james.kaleigh@aa.com;

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com; sametta.c.barnett@delta.com;

jhill@dowlohnes.com; jyoung@yklaw.com; dkirstein@yklaw.com;

john.fredericksen@suncountry.com; dan.weiss@united.com;

howard_kass@usairways.com; barbara.russell@virginamerica.com;

brian.hedberg@dot.gov; esta.rosenberg@dot.gov; brett.kruger@dot.gov
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 80 (Thursday, April 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 20874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7968]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-61,233]


Sara Lee, also known as Hanesbrands, Rockingham, NC; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on April 3, 2007 in response to a petition 
filed on behalf of workers of Sara Lee, also known as Hanesbrands, 
Rockingham, North Carolina.
    The petitioning group of workers is covered by a duplicate petition 
(TA-W-61,117) instituted on March 15, 2007 that is the subject of an 
ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been 
issued. Further investigation in this case would duplicate efforts; 
therefore the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of April, 2007.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E7-7968 Filed 4-25-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P