alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Which personnel are required to be trained? Does that include volunteers, principal 

investigators, food vendors at zoos etc.?

All personnel involved in implementing your contingency planned should be trained. Facilities 

should be able to provide dates of training to inspectors when requested.

Does a complete retraining need to happen if a new person is added to the plan?

Retraining is only required if there are substantive changes after the annual review. It would be 

left to the discretion of the facility whether changing a responsible party on a plan is considered 

a substantive change.

How long does a licensee/registrant maintain records of training?

Training records are not required.

If a facility put a plan in place in Sept 2021 and did their required training at that time, does 

training need to re-occur once July 5, 2022 rolls around or are they in compliance already?

Training must be completed 60 days after the plan is put into place. If a facility put a plan in

place in Sept 2021 and trained at that time, they would be in compliance as of July 5 and no

further action needed until their annual review.

Does the IACUC have to review the plan semi-annually or annually?

Animal Care’s only requirement is that the contingency plan is reviewed at least annually. The 

facility may delegate the review to the IACUC who then may identify the frequency of review, 

but no less than annually.
22133

#### State v. Untalan

Affirmed
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 14, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 5, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 28 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-96, CP2024-98.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-27416 Filed 12-13-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
CSB BANCORP, INCEXHIBIT32.2SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONIn connection with the quarterly report of CSB Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thenine-month period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paula J. Meiler, Senior Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Paula J. Meiler Paula J. Meiler  Senior Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer  *This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode, and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwisesubject to the liability of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporatedby reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except asotherwise stated in such filing.
28.
combustionsurvey - Fw: Boiler MACT Rule- Additional Information for Reconsideration 

 

-----Forwarded by Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US on 07/16/2011 03:33PM -----

To: Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jim Eddinger/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: "Buff, Dave" <DBuff@GOLDER.com> 

Date: 07/15/2011 06:02PM 

Subject: Boiler MACT Rule- Additional Information for Reconsideration 

(See attached file: FSI_MACT_Floor_Analysis_Report (Final 07-15-11).pdf) 

(See attached file: FSI Boiler MACT Additional Information to EPA Ltr_7-15-11 (Final).pdf)

Mr. Shrager and Eddinger, per the Agency’s request in the Federal Register of May 18, 2011, please find 

attached additional information concerning the Hybrid Suspension Grate boiler subcategory, and accompanying 

documents (first of two emails). I will also upload these to the docket. If you should have any questions, 

please call or email me. The sugar industry representatives would again like to meet with you and the Agency 

staff, in late July or August, regarding this information and the status of the rulemaking. We will be in contact 

in the near future regarding a meeting. Thanks very much. 

David A. Buff, P.E., Q.E.P. | Principal Engineer | Golder Associates Inc. 

6026 NW 1st Place, Gainesville, Florida, USA 32607 

Tel: +1 (352) 336-5600 ext. 21145 Fax: +1 (352) 336-6603 | Cell: +1 352 514-5600 | 

E: dbuff@golder.com | www.golder.com 

Work Safe, Home Safe 

This email transmission is confidential and may contain proprietary information for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. Any use, distribution or

copying of this transmission, other than by the intended recipient, is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender 

and delete all copies. Electronic media is susceptible to unauthorized modification, deterioration, and incompatibility. Accordingly, the electronic 

media version of any work product may not be relied upon. 

Please consider the environment before printing this email. 

 

 

= 

From: Brian Shrager <Shrager.Brian@epamail.epa.gov>

To: <combustionsurvey@erg.com>

Date: 7/16/2011 3:34 PM

Subject: Fw: Boiler MACT Rule- Additional Information for Reconsideration

Attachments:

 

FSI_MACT_Floor_Analysis_Report (Final 07-15-11).pdf; FSI Boiler MACT 

Additional Information to EPA Ltr_7-15-11 (Final).pdf

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\GGibson\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4E21AF8DDO... 8/2/2011
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10789

Summary Calendar

NICHOLAS MORENO,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

WARDEN, EDEN DETENTION CENTER; 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. Attorney General,

Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

No. 3:08-CV-1041

Before SMITH, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

After Nicholas Moreno, federal prisoner # 23608-069, was convicted, his

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 4, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-10789

2

sentence was affirmed on appeal, his first 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was denied,

and his motion for certificate of appealability and request to file a successive

§ 2255 motion were denied. He then filed a purported 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition

in which he argued that his plea was invalid and that his sentence was void on

account of various problems with his extradition proceedings. 

The district court determined that the purported § 2241 petition was actually a § 2255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction, so the court dismissed the

suit. Moreno appeals the dismissal and requests appointed counsel.

Moreno maintains that his extradition proceedings were invalid, and he

asserts that he should be permitted to bring his challenges to these proceedings

in a § 2255 motion. He does not present argument on, and has thus abandoned,

the claims relating to his guilty plea. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225

(5th Cir. 1993). 

Moreno’s claims are grounded in alleged errors that took place before sentencing, so the district court did not err by determining that the purported

§ 2241 petition is best construed as a § 2255 motion. See Cox v. Warden, Fed.

Detention Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990). The court likewise did not

err by determining that it lacked jurisdiction over the motion, which was an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. See § 2255; see also United States v. Key,

205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000); Solsona v. Warden, F.C.I., 821 F.2d 1129, 1132

(5th Cir. 1987). 

The judgment is AFFIRMED. The motion for appointment of counsel is

DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 70 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                   House Calendar No. 6
114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 70

                          [Report No. 114-13]

   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 596) to repeal the 
  Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related 
provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 2015

   Mr. Burgess, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 596) to repeal the 
  Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related 
provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, 
                        and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 596) to repeal the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related 
provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, 
and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of 
the bill are waived. The amendment printed in the report of the 
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points 
of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
intervening motion except: (1) 90 minutes of debate equally divided 
among and controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority 
members of the Committees on Education and the Workforce, Energy and 
Commerce, and Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
                                                   House Calendar No. 6

114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. RES. 70

                          [Report No. 114-13]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 596) to repeal the 
  Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related 
provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            February 2, 2015

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Belden & Blake Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the knowledge of the
undersigned:  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:November 12, 2010 By: /s/ James M. Vanderhider

James M. Vanderhider, President and Chief Financial Officer This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q and shall not be treated as having been filed as part of the Form 10-Q.  4
# C_2019044EN.01000702.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 23 August 2018 — Dong Yang Electronics Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

(Case C-547/18)

(2019/C 44/10)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dong Yang Electronics Sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

Questions referred

| 1. | Can it be inferred, from the mere fact that a company established outside the European Union has a subsidiary in the territory of Poland, that a fixed establishment exists in Poland within the meaning of Article 44 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and Article 11(1) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax? (2) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can it be inferred, from the mere fact that a company established outside the European Union has a subsidiary in the territory of Poland, that a fixed establishment exists in Poland within the meaning of Article 44 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and Article 11(1) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax? (2)

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the negative, is a third party required to examine contractual relationships between a company established outside the European Union and its subsidiary in order to determine whether the former company has a fixed establishment in Poland? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the negative, is a third party required to examine contractual relationships between a company established outside the European Union and its subsidiary in order to determine whether the former company has a fixed establishment in Poland?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2011 L 77, p. 1.

---
#### Schrandt v. Island Movers, Inc.

18035

11/25/97

Vacated and Remanded
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2431

SHITU MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, Petitioner,
versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A95-229-519) Submitted: July 20, 2005 Decided: August 24, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rev. Uduak J. Ubom, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle E. Gorden, Senior Litigation Counsel, Michele Y. F. Sarko, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* By not raising the issue in her brief, Ibrahim has abandoned any challenge to the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Shitu Mohammed Ibrahim, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming and adopting the immigration judge’s decision denying asylum, withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture. *Finding no error, we deny the petition for review. A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal is conclusive if supported by substantialevidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v. EliasZacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Our review of the Board’s “asylum eligibility determination is most narrow . . . [and] recognizes the respect we must accord the [Board’s] expertise and its status as the Attorney General’s designee in deportation decisions.” Lopez-Soto v. Ashcroft , 383 F.3d 228, 233 (4th Cir. 2004). Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. 8 U .S.C. § 12 52(b)(4)(B) (2000). We will reverse the Board “only if the evidence presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” Rusu v. INS , 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We find there was- 3 - no such compelling evidence. Accordingly, we will not reverse the Board’s decision. “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum - even though the facts that must be proved are the same - an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 231(b)(3).” Camara , 378 F.3d at 367. Because Ibrahim is not eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher st andard for withholding of removal. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
(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.
  /s/ Paula J. MeilerPaula J. MeilerSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 
 *
    
    This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States
Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise
subject to the liability of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated
by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as
otherwise stated in such filing. .
21980

#### State v. Niheu

Affirmed
Annex 14

CHAPTER 8.16.INFECTION WITH RIFT VALLEY FEVER VIRUS

[...]

**Article 8.16.8.**

Recommendations for importation of semen and *in vivo*derived embryos of susceptible animals from countries or zones infected with RVFV

*Veterinary Authorities* should require the presentation of an *international veterinary certificate* attesting that the donor animals:

1)	showed no clinical signs of RVF within the period from 14 days prior to and 14 days following collection of the semen or embryos;

AND

2)	either:

a)	were vaccinated against RVF at least 14 days prior to collection; or

b)	were subjected to a serological test on the day of collection, with positive result; or

c)	were subjected to a serological test on two occasions with negative results on the day of collection and at least 14 days after collection~~.~~; or

d)were subjected to a test for the detection of the agent with negative result on the day of collection. 

[...]

___________________________

Report of the Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/February 2024	1
CSB BANCORP, INC.

EXHIBIT 11

STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

|                                                 | Three Months Ended     
|------------------------------------------------ | -----------------------
|March 31,                                       
|2001                                             | 2000                   
|Basic Earnings Per Share                         |                        
|Net income                                       | $  307,686             
|Weighted average common shares                   | 2,624,377              
|Basic Earnings Per Share                         | $        0.12          
|Diluted Earnings Per Share                       |                        
|Net income                                       | $  307,686             
|Weighted average common shares                   | 2,624,377              
|Weighted average effect of assumed stock options | 6,889                  
|Total                                            | 2,631,265

========    
|Diluted Earnings Per Share                       | $        0.12

========
# C_2019263EN.01004601.xml

| 5.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Luz Saúde v EUIPO — Clínica La Luz (HOSPITAL DA LUZ)

(Case T-357/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of EU figurative mark HOSPITAL DA LUZ - Earlier national figurative mark clínica LALUZ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 263/52)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Luz Saúde, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: G. Gentil Anastácio, P. Guerra e Andrade, M. Barros Silva and G. Moreira Rato, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, I. Ribeiro da Cunha and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Clínica La Luz, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 April 2018 (Case R 2084/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Clínica La Luz and Luz Saúde.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Luz Saúde, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Luz Saúde, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.

---