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

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17204-17205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06314]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0938; FRL-9374-7]

Pesticide Reregistration Performance Measures and Goals; Annual 
Progress Report; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's progress 
report in meeting its performance measures and goals for pesticide 
reregistration during fiscal year 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol P. Stangel, Pesticide Re-
evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8007; email 
address: stangel.carol@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Why is EPA announcing the availability of this report?

    The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 
requires EPA to publish information about EPA's annual achievements in 
meeting its performance measures and goals for pesticide 
reregistration. The report for fiscal year 2012 discusses the 
integration of tolerance reassessment with the reregistration process, 
and describes the status of various regulatory activities associated 
with reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The 2012 report also 
gives total numbers of products reregistered and products registered 
under the ``fast-track'' provisions of FIFRA.

II. How can I get a copy of the 2012 report?

    1. Docket. The 2012 report is available at http://www.regulations.gov, under

[[Page 17205]]

docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0938.
    2. EPA Web site. The 2012 report is also available on EPA's Web 
site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/reports.htm.

III. Can I comment on this report?

    Although not subject to a formal comment period, EPA welcomes input 
from stakeholders and the general public. Written comments, identified 
by the docket identification number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0938, would be most 
helpful if received by EPA on or before May 20, 2013.
    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) 
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0938, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public 
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 
NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: March 11, 2013.
James Jones,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2013-06314 Filed 3-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

***CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350***

 

In connection with theaccompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Computer Horizons Corp. (the“ *Company*“) for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2003 (the “ *PeriodicReport*“), I, Michael J. Shea, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best ofmy knowledge and belief, that the Periodic Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and that the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company. 

 
| Date:  | November 9, 2004 |   | /s/ Michael J. Shea  |
|--------|------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|   |             |   | Michael J. Shea           |
|   |             |   | Chief Financial Officer   |

 

----
#### Jerry Wayne HOUSTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-591.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 29, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Bernard R. ACOSTA v. George R. CARY, Jr., M. D., Employees Insurance of Wausau, and Hartford Fire Insurance Co.

No. 62337.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 16, 1978.

In re: Bernard R. Acosta applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. 357 So.2d 1345.

Denied.
EXHIBIT 4.5



 




Exhibit 4.5



PROMISSORY NOTE



	 	 	 
	Value: $200,000.00	 	
Dated: November 28, 2002



          FOR VALUE RECEIVED, ZIM TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC. (the “Debtor”)
hereby promises to pay on demand to or to the order of 160879 Canada Inc. (the
“Holder”) in the City of Ottawa, Ontario at such address as the Holder may from
time to time direct, the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00),
in lawful money of Canada plus interest as herein provided. Interest shall be
calculated on the principal sum outstanding at the rate per annum of five (5%)
percent and shall accrue to the date of payment.



          Notwithstanding the other terms hereof, the Debtor shall have the right to
prepay at any time and from time to time without a bonus all or any portion of
the amount outstanding, including interest, under this Note.



          The Debtor and all endorsers of this Note hereby waive presentment of
payment, notice of non-payment, protest and notice of protest.



          This Note and the obligations represented hereby shall be binding upon the
Debtor and its permitted successors and assigns and shall inure to the benefit
of the Holder and its successors and assigns.



          DATED at Ottawa, this 28th day of November 2002.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	SIGNED, SEALED & DELIVERED	 	 	 	)	 	 
	 	 	 	 	)	 	 
	 	 	 	 	)	 	ZIM TECHNOLOGIES
	 	 	 	 	)	 	INTERNATIONAL INC.
	 	 	 	 	)	 	per:
	 	 	 	 	)	 	/s/ James Stechyson
	 	 	 	 	)	 	

	 	 	 	 	)	 	Name:  James Stechyson
	 	 	 	 	)	 	Title:    Chairman
	 	 	 	 	)	 	I have the authority to bind the Corporation
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Danny Williams, Appellant.

[735 NYS2d 825]

Crew III, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tompkins County (Barrett, J.), rendered September 22, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of two counts of the crime of robbery in the third degree.

As the result of a plea bargain, defendant and the People executed a plea memorandum wherein it was agreed that defendant would plead guilty to two counts of robbery in the third degree in full satisfaction of a three-count indictment. The memorandum further recited that the People would recommend concurrent prison terms of 2 to 4 years and restitution as provided by the presentence report, while defendant reserved his right to a restitution hearing. Defendant entered the agreed-upon plea and waived his right to appeal. Defendant thereafter was sentenced in accordance with the plea memorandum and restitution was imposed in the amount set forth in the presentence report. Defendant voiced no objection as to the restitution imposed, nor did he request a hearing.

On this appeal, defendant contends only that the record contains insufficient evidence to support the findings required for restitution. We affirm. While it is true, as claimed by defendant, that an appellate claim that a sentence is illegal cannot *591be waived *(see, People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1, 9), the instant case does not involve the legality of defendant’s sentence. Clearly, County Court had the legal authority to impose restitution as part of the sentence and, defendant’s assertions notwithstanding, the issue being raised on appeal involves only the procedure by which the court arrived at the amount of restitution, which is not reviewable in light of defendant’s waiver *(see, People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273, 281).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
#### Russell E. BOLLEN and Frances L. Bollen, Appellants, v. Emma MACKEY and George Mackey, Appellees.

No. 70-653.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 12, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Martin County; Wallace Sample, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 177 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to expand eligibility for 

participation in the Federal Pell Grant program to certain trade schools. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2021 

Mr. WITTMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to expand 

eligibility for participation in the Federal Pell Grant 

program to certain trade schools. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Professional Pell Edu5 cation Learning Act’’ or the ‘‘PROPEL Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FEDERAL PELL GRANTS. 

7 (a) CLARIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE INSTITUTIONS.— 

8 Section 401(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

9 U.S.C. 1070a(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 

10 following: 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 177 IH

1 ‘‘(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 

2 for purposes of this section, the terms ‘eligible institution’, 

3 ‘institution of higher education’, ‘eligible program’, and 

4 ‘institution’ include a program of education that— 

5 ‘‘(A) consists of vocational or technical training, 

6 flight training, or apprenticeship or other on-job 

7 training; 

8 ‘‘(B) an individual may pursue using edu9 cational assistance pursuant to section 3313(g) of 

10 title 38, United States Code; 

11 ‘‘(C) is less than 600 clock hours of instruction, 

12 16 semester hours, or 24 quarter hours, offered dur13 ing a period of less than 15 weeks; 

14 ‘‘(D) is not required to be accredited by a na15 tionally recognized accrediting agency or association 

16 recognized by the Secretary pursuant to part H; 

17 ‘‘(E) is not required to lead to a recognized 

18 educational credential; 

19 ‘‘(F) for purposes of the reporting requirements 

20 under section 132(i), reports on all enrolled students 

21 without regard to whether a student is a first-time, 

22 full-time, degree- or certificate-seeking student; and 

23 ‘‘(G) except as otherwise provided in subpara24 graphs (A) through (F) of this paragraph, meets the 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 177 IH

1 requirements of this title for an institution to par2 ticipate in the program under this section.’’. 

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 484(a)(1) 

4 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

5 1091(a)(1)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or, for purposes of 

6 the Federal Pell Grant program under section 401, a pro7 gram of education described in section 401(a)(4)’’ after 

8 ‘‘section 487’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Winston S. BOURGEOIS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. N-440.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 13, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Interlocutory appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Comarco, Inc. I, Thomas A. Franza,
Chief Executive Officer of Comarco, Inc., certify, 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 this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Comarco, Inc.
| | -- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date:  September 12, 2003 |  |  |  | /s/    Thomas A. Franza
|------------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                          |  |  |  | Thomas A. Franza       
|                          |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer



34



---

Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Comarco, Inc. I, Daniel R. Lutz,
Chief Financial Officer of Comarco, Inc., certify, 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 this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Comarco, Inc.
| | -- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date:  September 12, 2003 |  |  |  | /s/    Daniel R. Lutz  
|------------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                          |  |  |  | Daniel R. Lutz         
|                          |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer



35
EXHIBIT 13.2

Certification by the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of China Nuokang Bio-Pharmaceutical Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Tianruo Pu, 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 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.



|                   |  |                        
|------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: June 3, 2011
|                   | 
|By:                |  | /s/ Tianruo Pu         
|Name:              |  | Tianruo Pu             
|Title:             |  | Chief Financial Officer
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 9, 2021

NO. 03

- 21

- 00263

- CV

Author Manning The II and The Graphic Knights , Appellant s

v.

Sony and Sony Playstation , Appellee

APPEAL FROM JUSTICE COURT PRECINCT 3 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND KELLY

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on June 8, 2021

. Having reviewed

the record

, it appears that the C ourt lacks jurisdiction over the appeal

. Therefore, the C ourt

dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. The appe lla nt s shall pay all costs relating to this

appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
Webinar Attendees: Negotiated Rulemaking for Distribution Transformers Medium-Voltage Working Group Meeting

Meeting Date: Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Name Title Organization Street City State Zip Phone Fax 

Allen, Ph.D., Jerry Transformer Technology 

Leader

Metglas, Inc. 440 Allied Drive Conway SC 29526 843-349-6810 843-349-6829 jerry.allen

Costello, Pamela Consultant Navigant Consulting, Inc. 1801 K Street, Suite 500 Washington DC 20006-1301 202-973-2400

202-481-7354

202-973-2401 pamela.c

Drexler, P.E., Charles R VP of Operations / 

Engineering

Kentucky Association of Electric Cooperatives

4515 Bishop Lane Louisville KY 40218 502-451-2430 N/A charlied@

cdrexler@

Flaten, David Senior Specialty 

Engineer)

Xcel Energy 1123 West 3rd Ave Denver CO 80223 N/A N/A david.l.fla

Freeman, Jeremiah Energy Analyst New West Technologies, LLC 1000 Independence Ave, 

SW

Washington DC 20585 N/A N/A jeremiah.

Johnson, Caitlin Consultant Navigant Consulting, Inc. 77 South Bedford Street, 

Suite 400

Burlington MA 01803 781-270-8398 781-270-0418 caitlin.joh

Kaja, Brian Core and Coil Design 

Engineer

GE Energy Distribution Transformers

7000 West Bert Kouns Industrial Loop

Shreveport LA 71129 N/A N/A brian.kaja

Lass, James GM of Distribution 

Engineering and Emergency Management

Cleco Power LLC 2030 Donahue Ferry Rd Pineville LA 71361 N/A N/A James.La

Lau, Christopher Consultant Navigant Consulting 1801 K Street NW

Suite 500

Washington DC 20006-1301 202-481-7524 202-973-2401 christoph

Luo, Zhimei Consultant Navigant Consulting 1801 K Street, NW, Suite 

500

Washington DC 20006 240-401-5410 202-973-2401 zhimei.luo

Lyke, Richard F. Principal Engineer, 

Product Development & Applications Engineering

AK Steel Corporation 705 Curtis Street Middletown OH 45043-0001 513-425-5709 513-425-5866 richard.ly

Petrosino, Thomas Consultant Prolec GE / TRP Consulting 1917 Park Road Charlotte NC 28203 704-904-5509 N/A tpetrosinoRossetti, John Systems Engineer Memphis Light Gas and Water 220 South Main Memphis TN 38103 N/A N/A jrossetti@Schneider, Jeff 3-Phase Padmount 

Engineering Manager

Cooper Power Systems 1600 E. North Street Waukesha WI 53188 N/A N/A jeffrey.sc

Smith, Robert Product Manager Federal Pacific 601 Old Airport Rd Bristol VA 24201 276-645-8836 N/A bsmith@f
#### Simon MATHER, Appellant, v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-624.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 29, 1970.

Peter S. Schwedock, Miami, for appellant.

Dieter K. Gunther, of Carey, Dwyer, Austin, Cole & Selwood, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Martineau v. City of Daytona Beach, Fla.1950, 47 So.2d 538 and Coleman v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla. 1953, 62 So.2d 409.

WALDEN and REED, JJ., and COOPER, RICHARD H., Associate Judge, concur.
# ^^^^^^ H

OAR Box 1878 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



# v£\ l 

### Document

Number:

Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 1 1/28/20081:21:26

PM Sheet 135 of 145 P. 1

# IT 7

^* 08 

### X 

# A-90-1 9 H-E-1 8

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION AGENCY / - WASHINGTON , D.C
. 2046 0
2 2 JA N 199 1

MSMQBA-NDU M D£ C 

### \ B199 Z OFFIC E O F AI RAN D RADIATIO N

SUBJECT : Coordinatio n wit hTrade Associatio n Representin

g Smal l Businesse s Potentiall y Affected b

y th e Hazardou s Organi c NESHA

P (HON ) Rulemakin

g 

# ^G^/^2^ ^ FROM : Rober t E . Rosensteel , Chie f

Chemica l Manufacturin g Section , CPB/ES D (MD-13 ) TO : Susa

n R . Wyatt , Chie f Chemical s an

d Petroleu

m Branch , ES D (MD-13 ) Ms . Karen Brow

n o f th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agency' s Offic e o f Smal l Busines s Ombudsma n wa s contacted o

n Januar

y 4 , 1991 , t o determine i f sh e migh t identif y

trad e association s representin

g smal l businesse s operatin g facilitie s tha t ma y b e affected b

y the HO N rule . I t wa s explaine d tha t coordinatio

n wit hthe Syntheti c Organi c Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n (SOCMA ) ha

d alread

y been initiated , bu t sh e wa s aske

d i f ther e wer e othe r trad e association s tha t migh t represen t smal l chemica l producers . Ms . Brow n identifie

d tw o organization s i n additio n t o SOCM A tha t ma

y represen t suchsmal l businesses , on e o f whic hi s th e Smal l Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n o f th e Nationa l Associatio

n o f Manufacturer s (NAM) . O n Januar

y 9 , 1991 , I contacte d Ms . Teres a Pug

ho f NA M an d provided he r a genera l backgroun d o f th e HO N an d the scop

e o f the rul e a s w

e se e i t a t th

e presen t time . I the n offere

d t o mee t wit hthe

m a t thei r offic e i n Washington , D.C . t o provide additiona l informatio n an d provide the

m a n opportunity

t o interac t wit hu s a s w e develo

p th e rule . Ms . Pug

hresponded tha t althoug hsh e i s intereste

d in th e rul e sh

e doe s no t hav

e tim e t o devot e towar

d an y coordinatio

n wit hu s o

n th e HO N sinc e thei r organizatio

n ha s onl y

one othe r staf f person . The y ar e interactin

g wit hEP

A regardin

g the permi t progra m an d simpl y

d o no t have sufficien t tim e t o ge t involve

d in rulemaking s sucha s the HON . Ms . Pug hdi d as k i f w

e wer e coordinatin

g wit hothe r industr y trad e group s an

d I pointed ou t tha t w e ha d me t an

d discussed the HO N wit hbot hSOCM

A an d the Chemica l Manufacturer s Association (CMA) . W

e als o discussed th e NAPCTA C meetin

g an d i t wa s pointed ou t tha t membe r compan y representative s o f CM A di d si t o

n theI 

# • / mAJ*

NAPCTAC . Ms . Pug

hthen responde

d tha t sh

e believed tha t thei r position s woul d be adequatel y represente

d b y SOCM A an d CMA . Sh

e als o indicate

d tha t sh

e woul d coordinat e wit hMs . Mar y Legatsk i o f SOCM A t o kee p apprise

d o f HO N progres s an

d t o mak e sur e NAM' S view s wer e provided throug hSOCMA .
NUMBER 13-11-00010-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

THERESA ROSALES, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 36th District Court

of San Patricio County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Theresa Rosales, by and through her attorney, has filed a motion to 

withdraw her appeal because she no longer desires to prosecute it. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.2(a). Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to withdraw the 
2

appeal and pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a), dismiss the appeal. 

Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be 

entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Delivered and filed the

3rd day of February, 2011.