alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 63047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31140]

[[Page 63047]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL162-1b; FRL-5926-7]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan; Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a September 8, 1997, State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
request submitted by the State of Illinois to tighten Volatile Organic 
Material regulations for cold cleaning degreasing operations in the 
Chicago and Metro-East ozone nonattainment areas. In the final rules 
section of this Federal Register, the EPA is approving this action as a 
direct final rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a 
noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse written comments. A 
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final 
rule. If no adverse written comments are received in response to that 
direct final rule, no further activity is contemplated in relation to 
this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse written comments, the 
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all written public comments 
received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the 
proposed rule. Any parties interested in commenting on this document 
should do so at this time.

DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be received on or 
before December 26, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to: J. Elmer Bortzer, 
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    Copies of the State submittal are available for inspection at: 
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark J. Palermo, Environmental 
Protection Specialist, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs 
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6082.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct 
final rule published in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: November 7, 1997.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-31140 Filed 11-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7376

PAUL ARTHUR LIPICH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE M. HINKLE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-499-R) Submitted: December 22, 1998 Decided: January 11, 1999 Before HAMILTON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Arthur Lipich, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Paul Arthur Lipich seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Lipich v. Hinkle , No. CA-98-499-R (W.D. Va. Sept. 10, 1998). 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
EXHIBIT 32.1



Section 1350 Certification



In connection with the Annual Report of FISION Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Michael Brown, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, Garry Lowenthal, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that :





| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and                
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                      
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company.





|                      |     |                                                                     | 
|--------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Dated: March 31, 2017 | By: | */s/ Michael Brown*                                                 | 
|                      |     | Michael Brown, Chief Executive Officer,
Principal executive officer | 



|                      |    |                                                                                      | 
|--------------------- | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|Dated: March 31, 2017 | By | */s/ Garry Lowenthal*                                                                | 
|                      |    | Garry Lowenthal, Chief Financial Officer,
Principal financial and accounting officer | 



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 239 (Friday, December 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 65443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32480]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

    Notice is hereby given that on November 20, 1997, a proposed 
Consent Decree in United States v. Boise Cascade Corp., et al., Civil 
Action No. 97CV1704 (N.D.N.Y.), was lodged with the United States 
District Court for the Northern District of New York.
    In this action the United States sought cost recovery and 
injunctive relief pursuant to Sections 106 and 107 of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9606 
and 9607, against defendant Boise Cascade Corporation, Labelon 
Corporation, Miller Brewing Company, Niagara Mohawk Power Company, and 
The Stroh Brewery Company related to the Sealand Restoration Superfund 
Site in Lisbon, New York. In the proposed consent decree, the settling 
parties agree to pay to the United States $750,000 in reimbursement of 
costs expended by the United States in connection with the Site and to 
perform the remedial action for the Site selected by the Environmental 
Protection Agency in the Record of Decision dated September 29, 1995.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication comments relating to the consent 
decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General 
of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of 
Justice, Washington, D.C., 20530, and should refer to United States v. 
Boise Casade Corp., et al., DOJ #90-11-3-1144.
    The consent decree may be examined at the Office of the United 
States Attorney, 231 James T. Foley Courthouse, 445 Broadway, Albany, 
New York, at U.S. EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York, and 
at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, N.W. 4th Floor, 
Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 624-0892. A copy of the consent decree 
may be obtained in person or by mail for the Consent Decree Library, 
1120 G Street, N.W. 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005. In requesting a 
copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $13.00 (25 cents per page 
reproduction cost) payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 97-32480 Filed 12-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00090-CR

Nicholas Wayne Doss

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

197th District Court of Willacy County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-CR-0034-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed as modified by 

this Court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 26, 2021
US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 4th QUARTER 2012

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

ANNOUNCEMENT AUCTION SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE DATE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT MONEY

4-WK 3-MO 6-MO 12-MO

4-WEEK AND 9/27 10/1 10/4 37.00 33.00 29.00 96.00 3.00

3&6&12 MO BILLS 10/4 10/9 10/11 37.00 33.00 29.00 96.00 3.00

10/11 10/15 10/18 37.00 33.00 29.00 25.00 120.00 4.00

10/18 10/22 10/25 37.00 33.00 29.00 95.00 4.00

10/25 10/29 11/1 37.00 33.00 29.00 97.00 2.00

11/1 11/5 11/8 37.00 33.00 29.00 97.00 2.00

11/8 11/13 11/15 37.00 33.00 29.00 25.00 122.00 2.00

11/15 11/19 11/23 37.00 33.00 29.00 97.00 2.00

11/23 11/26 11/29 37.00 33.00 29.00 97.00 2.00

11/29 12/3 12/6 37.00 33.00 29.00 97.00 2.00

12/6 12/10 12/13 37.00 33.00 29.00 25.00 122.00 2.00

12/13 12/17 12/20 37.00 33.00 29.00 97.00 2.00

12/20 12/24 12/27 37.00 33.00 29.00 97.00 2.00

1362.00 1330.00 32.00

CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS

49-DAY BILL 11/13 11/15 35.00 35.00

Matures 1/3

42-DAY BILL 11/20 11/22 33.00 33.00

Matures 1/3

42-DAY BILL 8/20 8/23 20.00 -20.00

Matures 10/4

CMB Funds: CMB Funds: 48 00 .

COUPONS

CHANGE

IN SIZE

3-year Note 10/4 10/9 10/17 32.00 0.00

10-year Note ® 10/4 10/10 10/17 21.00 0.00

30-year Bond ® 10/4 10/11 10/17 13.00 0.00 39.31 26.69

30-year TIPS ® 10/11 10/18 10/31 7.00 0.00

2-year Note 10/18 10/23 10/31 35.00 0.00

5-year Note 10/18 10/24 10/31 35.00 0.00

7-year Note 10/18 10/25 10/31 29.00 0.00 51.23 54.77

3-year Note 10/31 11/6 11/15 32.00 0.00

10-year Note 10/31 11/7 11/15 24.00 0.00

30-year Bond 10/31 11/8 11/15 16.00 0.00 63.09 8.91

10-year TIPS ® 11/8 11/15 11/30 13.00 0.00

2-year Note 11/21 11/27 11/30 35.00 0.00

5-year Note 11/21 11/28 11/30 35.00 0.00

7-year Note 11/21 11/29 11/30 29.00 0.00 52.34 59.66

3-year Note 11/29 12/4 12/17 32.00 0.00

10-year Note ® 11/29 12/5 12/17 21.00 0.00

30-year Note ® 11/29 12/6 12/17 13.00 0.00 40.22 25.78

5-year TIPS ® 12/6 12/13 12/31 14.00 0.00

2-year Note 12/13 12/18 12/31 35.00 0.00

5-year Note 12/13 12/19 12/31 35.00 0.00

7-year Note 12/13 12/20 12/31 29.00 0.00 52.41 60.59

535.00 298.58 236.42

Estimates are italicized. R = Reopening

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 316
2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-15-2005

USA v. Gregg

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 04-2912

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Gregg" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 473.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/473
 PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 04-2912

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

KENNARD GREGG,

 Appellant

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

D.C. Criminal No. 04-cr-00103

(Honorable John R. Padova)

Present: SCIRICA, Chief Judge,

SLOVITER, ALITO, ROTH, McKEE, RENDELL, BARRY,

AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, VAN ANTWERPEN,

and BECKER, Circuit Judges

O R D E R

A majority of the active judges having voted for rehearing en banc in the

above appeal, it is ordered that the Clerk of this Court list the above case for rehearing en

banc at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, November 1, 2005.

BY THE COURT,

/s/ Anthony J. Scirica 

Chief Judge

DATED: September 15, 2005

CLC\cc: Elaine DeMasse, Esq. David L. McColgin, Esq. Joseph G. Poluka, Esq. 

 Robert A. Zauzmer, Esq.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________ 

JOSEPH MANDELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2013-5092

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 13-CV-0188, Judge Thomas C. Wheeler. 

__________________________ 

ON MOTION

__________________________ 

O R D E R

Joseph Mandell, moves for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, which is also treated as a motion to reinstate. 

Upon consideration thereof, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

is granted. 

Case: 13-5092 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 08/05/2013
JOSEPH MANDELL V. US 2

(2) The July 10, 2013 dismissal order is vacated, the 

mandate is recalled, and the appeal is reinstated.

(3) The briefing is complete. This case will be placed 

on the next available calendar in due course.

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk

s21 

Case: 13-5092 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 08/05/2013
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7083

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus RANDY GEAN WILLIAMS, a/k/a Malik Strong, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:99-cr-00116-JBF) Submitted: October 11, 2007 Decided: October 17, 2007 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randy Gean Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Randy Gean Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Williams’ notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims- 3 - based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Williams’ claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 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
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63381-63382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31289]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[KM-952-07-1420-00]


Notice of Filing of Plat of Survey; New Mexico

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The plat of survey described below will be officially filed in 
the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Santa Fe, New 
Mexico, on December 12, 1997.

New Mexico Principal Meridian, New Mexico

T. 25 S., R. 3 E., accepted November 7, 1997, for Group 949 NM.

    If a protest against this survey, as shown on the above plat is 
received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be 
stayed pending

[[Page 63382]]

consideration of the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until 
the day after all protests have been dismissed and become final or 
appeals from the dismissal afirmed.
    A person or party who wishes to protest against any of these 
surveys must file a written protest with the State Director, Bureau of 
Land Management, stating that they wish to protest.
    A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice 
of protest to the State Director, or the statement of reasons must be 
filed with the State Director within thirty (30) days after the protest 
is filed.
    The above-listed plat represents dependent resurveys, surveys, and 
subdivisions.
    This plat will be in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land 
Management, P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502-0115. Copies may 
be obtained from this office upon payment of $1.10 per sheet.

    Dated: November 12, 1997.
John P. Bennett,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor For New Mexico.
[FR Doc. 97-31289 Filed 11-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-FB-M
U.S. Position on IFC’s Investment in the Global Odebrecht Surety Project

July 7, 2011

The United strongly supports IFC’s efforts to provide financing to build and enhance 

infrastructure throughout the developing world and compliments IFC for developing innovative 

ways to support the infrastructure sector. 

The United States wishes to abstain on this proposed investment for legislatively mandated 

reasons related to the timeline of disclosure of environmental impact assessments. This is IFC’s 

first attempt at the direct approach of the Surety Finance Program and, if successful, the United 

States encourages IFC to develop this program in other regions with less developed markets. 

The United States notes the significant environmental and social risks associated with this 

proposed investment but appreciates that, even though Category A projects will be allowed 

within the partial credit guarantee facility, IFC has worked with the sponsor to exclude High 

Reputational Risk (HRR) projects.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 of Tower International, Inc. (the Company) as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James C. Gouin, Chief Financial Officer, 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, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

March 14, 2011





|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ James C. Gouin     
|James C. Gouin         
|Chief Financial Officer
|    |                                                                                                                                        |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 10-K/A of Molycorp, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

|                                                          |
|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                          |  |
| /s/ Geoffrey R. Bedford                                  |   |
| Geoffrey R. BedfordPresident and Chief Executive Officer |   |