alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

Nesky, Anthony

From: Jonathan Downing <jdowning@wyomingmining.org>

Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 3:57 PM

To: Nesky, Anthony

Cc: Katie Sweeney

Subject: Request for Public Hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 40 CFR 

Part 192 Rulemaking

Mr. Anthony Nesky:

The Wyoming Mining Association (WMA) hereby requests a public hearing on the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) proposed rule on 40 CFR Part 192 Health and Environmental Protection 

Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788 FRL-9909-20-OAR – 

RIN:2060-AP43 ) found at: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/01/26/2015-00276/healthand-environmental-protection-standards-for-uranium-and-thorium-mill-tailings . The WMA is an 

industry association representing mining companies, contractors, vendors, suppliers and consultants 

in the State of Wyoming. Among its mining industry members are uranium recovery licensees, 

including four (4) operating in-situ uranium recovery licensees, one conventional uranium recovery 

operator in standby, and several companies planning new uranium recovery operations that are 

currently in the permitting process. 

Total uranium concentrate production in the United States in 2013 was 4,659,000 pounds (U.S. 

Energy Information Administration - 2013 Domestic Uranium Production Report). In 2013, Wyoming 

uranium production was 2,600,000 pounds (Wyoming State Geological Survey), accounting for 56% 

of United States production. Wyoming contributes the largest share of any state to the total 

production of uranium in the United States. All of Wyoming’s uranium is produced by in-situ recovery 

which is directly impacted by this rulemaking. As such this rulemaking is of great importance to the 

WMA and its members involved in uranium recovery. Given its importance and in the interests of 

allowing the greatest amount of participation possible in the public hearing, the WMA requests that 

the hearing be held in Casper, Wyoming.

Sincerely yours,

Jonathan Downing 

Executive Director 

Wyoming Mining Association 

2601 Central Avenue 

PO Box 866 

Cheyenne, WY 82003 

307.635.0331 I Office 

307.630.7632 I Mobile 

jdowning@wyomingmining.org 

www.wyomingmining.org
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**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 Quarterly Report of RiskMetrics Group, Inc.(the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                     The Report,fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                                     The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 

Date: November 3,2009

 
| /s/ M.  Ethan Berman       |     |
|---------------------------------|----------|
| M.  Ethan Berman                |     |
| *(Principal Executive Officer)* | * * |

 

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

January 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129632 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 129632 

 COA: 248743 
 Wayne CC: 02-005203-01 

CHARLES MASON ALLEN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 23, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0123 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 30, 2006 

Clerk
U. S. Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service

NOTICE OF SALE OF COTTON

FOR RELEASE AT 12:00 P.M. CT January 14, 2021

USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service today announced the sale of Cotton. The cotton bales were sold under 

the SEAM dated January 13, 2021.

The following cotton offers were sold using 

the SEAM:

Offer No. Catalog Location Pounds 

Sold 

Bales 

Sold

Price 

Sold (per 

Pound)

CCC Revenue 

TS1100081 Bakersfield, CA 9,181 18 1.0010 $9,190.18

9,181 18 $9,190.18
THE VISUAL AIDS ON THE FOLLOWING 

PAGES ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND 

NOT INTENDED FOR OFFICIAL USE.

TO PURCHASE OFFICIAL VISUAL AIDS PLEASE CONTACT 

THE SPECIALTY CROPS INSPECTION DIVISION’S 

EQUIPMENT AND FORMS DEPOT 

USDA, AMS, FVP, SCI

831 MITTEN ROAD, ROOM 200

BURLINGAME, CA 94010

PHONE: 650-552-9073

FAX: 650-552-9147

EQUIPMENT CATALOG
CELERY 

Seedstem

(Center of stalk)

Sucker 

(Slender branch 

growing between 

well developed 

branches.) 

CEL-1-IDENT

Seedstem and Sucker

July 1992
CELERY 

Measure seedstem 

from base of stalk 

to top of seedstem 

exclusive of leaves

CEL-2-IDENT

Seedstem (cut)

July 1992
391 A.2d 701

#### Commonwealth v. Sullivan, Appellant.

*635Argued March 13, 1978.

David K. James, III, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant; Robert G. Teeter, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 21762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8693]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-1434-000]


ReEnergy Fort Fairfield LLC; Supplemental Notice That Revised 
Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
ReEnergy Fort Fairfield LLC's tariff revision filing, noting that such 
filing includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 
34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is April 25, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5b1d1e091814353732353e082e2b2b34292f1b3d3e2938753c342d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="094f4c5b4a46676560676c5a7c7979667b7d496f6c7b6a276e667f">[email protected]</span></a> or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 5, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8693 Filed 4-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* Pursuant to 5 t h 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-30418

(Summary Calendar)

BETHANY YOUNG

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CITY OF SULPHUR

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(97-CV-31)

August 8, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In this suit alleging sex discriminat ion, pursuant to Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, PlaintiffAppellant Bethany Young appeals the district court’s grant of

Defendant-Appe llee’s motion for summary judgment. Young was

employed by the City of Sulphur on a 90-day probationary basis, and

her employment was terminated before that temporary period expired.She alleges that her termination was the resu lt of sex

discrimination on the part of the police department. The City of

Sulphur argues in response that her termination was the result of

her inability to perform the requirements of her role as a police

officer. Having carefully and fully considered the record and the

briefs of counsel as well as the opinion of the district court, we

are satisfied that summary judgment was properly granted, a nd we

affirm the judgment of the district court for essentially the same

reasons set forth in its comprehensive opinion.

AFFIRMED.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00770-CV

Wanda McDonald, Appellant

v.

Federal National Mortgage Association, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

NO. 13-1456-CC4, HONORABLE JOHN McMASTER, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Wanda McDonald appeals the trial court’s judgment in a forcible detainer

suit that awarded possession of certain real property to appellee Federal National Mortgage

Association (FNMA). As a preliminary matter, FNMA argues that this appeal has become moot

because McDonald failed to supersede the judgment and because FNMA obtained a writ of

possession and has had possession of the property since the writ was executed. See Tex. Prop. Code

§ 24.007 (requiring supersedeas bond for stay of county court’s judgment in eviction suit).

The purpose of a forcible detainer action is to obtain immediate possession of

property. See Scott v. Hewitt, 90 S.W.2d 816, 818-19 (1936). Judgment of possession in a forcible

detainer action does not determine whether an eviction is wrongful but does determine the right to

immediate possession. See Marshall v. Housing Auth. of the City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782,

787 (Tex. 2006); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 510.3(e) (“only issue” before justice court in eviction cases

is “right to actual possession and not title”). Failure to supersede a forcible-detainer judgment will
not divest appellant of the right to appeal, but the judgment may be enforced including the issuance

of a writ of possession evicting the tenant from the premises. Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 786-87. An

appeal from a forcible-detainer action becomes moot if appellant is no longer in possession of the

property, unless the appellant holds and asserts “a potentially meritorious claim of right to current,

actual possession” of the property. Id. at 787.

Here, McDonald did not supersede the judgment and FNMA has had possession

of the property since February 21, 2014, when the writ of possession was executed. FNMA filed a

motion to dismiss the appeal, and this Court requested that McDonald file a response to FNMA’s

motion by March 10, 2014. McDonald failed to file any response, and as such, has not asserted

a potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession of the property. See Marshall,

198 S.W.3d at 787; Rady v. CitiMortgage, Inc., No. 03-11-00734-CV, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 1933,

at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 9, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding that appellant who failed

to respond to appellee’s motion to dismiss failed to assert potentially meritorious claim of right to

current, actual possession of property).

Accordingly, we grant FNMA’s motion and dismiss this appeal as moot.

 

Jeff Rose, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Rose

Dismissed as Moot

Filed: April 10, 2014

2
Exhibit 31.1








I, Susan B. Sheffield, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of GM Financial Consumer Automobile Receivables Trust 2022-2  (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);





2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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;





3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and





5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.





In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  The Bank of New York Mellon.








By:/s/ Susan B. SheffieldName:Susan B. SheffieldTitle:Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:March 4, 2024
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6774
DANIEL DENNIS COLLINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUDITH A. SHOWALTER, Administrative Law Judge; WAYNE HILL, IGO Coordinator for the House of Corrections-Annex; CORRECTIONAL OFFICIALS OFM.H.C.-ANNEX; WILLIAM L. SMITH, Warden; CAPTAIN SPAIN; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MCMILLION; L. CURTIS, Property Room; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JOHNSON; ALL CORRECTION OFFICIALS; MR. HILL, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-96- 1273-L) Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 19, 1996 Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Dennis Collins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion to appoint counsel and dismiss as frivolous on the reasoning of the district court. Collins v. Showalter , No. CA-96-1273-L (D. Md. May 6, 1996). 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 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER, SECTION 906


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Venugopal Rathi, the Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of T SERIES MIDDLE MARKET LOAN FUND LLC (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





• the Form 10-K of the Company for the period from September 14, 2021 (inception) to December 31, 2021 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-K”), 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 Form 10-K of the Company for the from September 14, 2021 (inception) to December 31, 2021 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: March 22, 2022/s/ Venugopal RathiVenugopal RathiChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)





* The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 45 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 45

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 4, 2019

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Directing the Clerk of the House to make a correction in the enrollment 
                             of H.R. 2157.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 2157, the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives shall make the following correction: In section 1207, 
strike ``May 31, 

              

2019'' each place such term appears and insert ``June 14, 2019''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2019.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT
TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David M. Engert, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc.



|                        |  |  |  |        |  |                                                                    
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 5, 2009 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/    DAVID M.
ENGERT                                             
|                        |  |  |  | Name:  |  | David M. Engert                                                    
|                        |  |  |  | Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND
, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Michael Hartlove

, * From the 238 th District Court of Midland County, Trial Court No. CV47405

.

Vs. No. 11

- 13

- 00115

- CV * June 13, 2013

Butts Recycling, Inc.

, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Willson , J.)

This court has considered Michael Hartlove’s and Butts Recycling, Inc.’s

motion s to dismiss this appeal and concludes that the motion s should be granted.

Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The
costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against the party incurring the same.
#### Joseph T. SHINE, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 4191.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

June 15, 1979.

Saul R. Friedman, Rice, Hoppner, Hed-land, Fleischer & Ingraham, Anchorage, for appellant.

Charles William Cohen, Asst. Dist. Atty., Joseph D. Balfe, Dist. Atty., Anchorage, Avrum M. Gross, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.

Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., and CON-NOR, BOOCHEVER, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of sale of marijuana in violation of AS 17.12.010.1 In this appeal he attacks the constitutionality of the statute, arguing that it “is overly broad and violates both the federal and Alaska constitutions because it proscribes conduct which is protected by the right of privacy as well as conduct which can be legitimately regulated by the State.” In light of our holding in *Brown v. State,*565 P.2d 179 (Alaska 1977), this appeal is frivolous. *See also Anderson v. State,*562 P.2d 351 (Alaska 1977). Accordingly, the judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.

1

. Appellant participated in the sale of 28 pounds of marijuana to an undercover police officer. The prearranged sale took place in an automobile at Anchorage International Airport. The purchase price was $7,000.
**Exhibit        32.1**

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                     |                                  |                 |
|------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|----------------------|
|                                     | **SNB BANCSHARES, INC.**              |
|                                |                             |            |
| Date:   November 10, 2005 | By:                         | /s/ Harvey Zinn |
|                                     | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                     |                                       |