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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1522 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1522

   To provide for the transfer of six obsolete tugboats of the Navy.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 23, 1996

Mr. Abraham (for himself and Mr. Levin) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for the transfer of six obsolete tugboats of the Navy.

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

SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN OBSOLETE TUGBOATS OF THE NAVY.

    (a) Requirement To Transfer Vessels.--The Secretary of the Navy 
shall transfer the six obsolete tugboats of the Navy specified in 
subsection (b) to the Northeast Wisconsin Railroad Transportation 
Commission, an instrumentality of the State of Wisconsin. Such 
transfers shall be made without reimbursement and shall be effective 
December 31, 1995.
    (b) Vessels Covered.--The requirement in subsection (a) applies to 
the six decommissioned Cherokee class tugboats, listed as of the date 
of the enactment of this Act as being surplus to the Navy, that are 
designated as ATF-105, ATF-110, ATF-149, ATF-158, ATF-159, and ATF-160.
    (c) Condition Relating to Environmental Compliance.--The Secretary 
shall require as a condition of the transfer of a vessel under 
subsection (a) that use of the vessel by the Commission not commence 
until the terms of any necessary environmental compliance letter or 
agreement with respect to that vessel have been complied with.
    (d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may require 
such additional terms and conditions in connection with the transfers 
required by subsection (a) as the Secretary considers appropriate.
                                 <all>
```
The HONORABLE JOSEPH F. BATAILLON, United States District Judge for 1

the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-3287

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of North Dakota.

Sheyenne Tooling & Manufacturing * [UNPUBLISHED]

Co., Inc., *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 10, 1998

 Filed: August 27, 1998

___________

Before WOLLMAN and LOKEN, Circuit Judges, and BATAILLON, District Judge. 1

___________

PER CURIAM.
The Honorable Bruce M. Van Sickle, United States District Judge for the

2

District of North Dakota.

Given the unique circumstances of this case, we deny the government’s motion 3

to dismiss the appeal as untimely taken.

-2-

Sheyenne Tooling and Manufacturing Co., Inc. (Sheyenne) appeals from the

district court’s denial of its request for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice 2

Act (EAJA). 28 U.S.C. § 2412. We affirm.3

Sheyenne operates a metal production facility in Cooperstown, North Dakota.

On August 4, 1995, the government filed an action against Sheyenne for violations of

the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., and of various regulations issued

thereunder. On December 30, 1996, the district court found that Sheyenne had violated

the Act and the regulations. In proposed settlement discussions, the United States

recommended and sought a penalty of $336,000.00. The court assessed penalties

against Sheyenne in the amount of $60,150.00. Sheyenne then sought attorney fees as

a prevailing party pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b).

To be considered a prevailing party under the EAJA, the party must receive at

least some relief on its claim. See Securities and Exch. Comm’n v. Comserv Corp.,

908 F.2d 1407, 1412 (8th Cir. 1990). We agree with the district court that Sheyenne

is not a prevailing party. The United States successfully sought the imposition of a

penalty against Sheyenne. The fact that Sheyenne’s penalty was substantially less than

that sought did not transform Sheyenne into a prevailing party. See Beall Constr. Co.

v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 507 F.2d 1041, 1047 (8th Cir.

1974). 

Sheyenne points to a recent amendment to the EAJA under which attorney fees

may be awarded when “the demand by the United States is substantially in excess of

the judgment finally obtained by the United States and is unreasonable when compared
-3-

with such judgment . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d)(1)(D). This provision, however, is

effective only with respect to cases filed on or after March 29, 1996, and therefore does

not apply in this case.

The judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 31.2                   CERTIFICATION

I, Sylvia Quintero , certify that:

6.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Arizona
Aircraft Spares, Inc.;

7.  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;

8.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in
all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;

9.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-
15(e)) for the registrant and have:

d)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to
the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

e)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and

f)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

10.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors
and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

c)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and

d)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting.


Date: May 24, 2004                     By: /s/  Sylvia Quintero
                                       Chief Financial Officer
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1856/2006

of 15 December 2006         

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 16 December 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 15 December 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 386/2005 (OJ L 62, 9.3.2005, p. 3).

----

ANNEX

to Commission Regulation of 15 December 2006 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

----

(1)  Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 750/2005 (OJ L 126, 19.5.2005, p. 12). Code ‘            999            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6937

ALEXANDER JIGGETTS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BALTIMORE COUNTY SHERIFF; JAY FISHER, Baltimore County Circuit; 

COUNTY CLERK JULIE ENSOR; BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT 

CHIEF JUDGE, Unknown Name,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-01525-JFM)

Submitted: November 20, 2017 Decided: November 28, 2017

Before KING, SHEDD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander Jiggetts, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Alexander Jiggetts appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. See Jiggetts v. Balt. Cty. Sheriff, No. 1:17-cv-01525-JFM (D. Md. June 30, 

2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
II

Calendar No. 271

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1472

To provide for 1 additional Federal judge for the middle district of Louisiana

and 1 less Federal judge for the eastern district of Louisiana.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 13, 1995

Mr. BREAUX (for himself and Mr. JOHNSTON) introduced the following bill;

which was read the first time

DECEMBER 14, 1995

Read the second time and placed on the calendar

A BILL

To provide for 1 additional Federal judge for the middle

district of Louisiana and 1 less Federal judge for the

eastern district of Louisiana.

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

3 SECTION 1. FEDERAL JUDGES FOR THE MIDDLE AND EAST4 ERN DISTRICTS OF LOUISIANA.

5 The table in section 133(a) of title 28, United States

6 Code, is amended by amending the item relating to Louisi7 ana to read as follows:
2

•S 1472 PCS

‘‘Louisiana

‘‘Eastern ........................................................................ 12

‘‘Middle .......................................................................... 3

‘‘Western ....................................................................... 7.’’.

Calendar No. 271

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1472

A BILL

To provide for 1 additional Federal judge for the

judge for the eastern district of Louisiana.middle district of Louisiana and 1 less Federal

DECEMBER 14, 1995

Read the second time and placed on the calendar
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION 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 Landmark Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report), I, Mark A. Herpich, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|/s/ Mark A. HerpichMark A. Herpich
Chief Financial Officer
August 12, 2002 |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1710 Referred in House (RFH)]

  2d Session
                                S. 1710

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 1996

             Referred to the Committee on National Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To authorize multiyear contracting for the C-17 aircraft program, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. MULTIYEAR CONTRACTING AUTHORITY FOR THE C-17 AIRCRAFT 
              PROGRAM.

    (a) Multiyear Contracts Authorized.--The Secretary of the Air Force 
may, pursuant to section 2306b of title 10, United States Code (except 
as provided in subsection (b)(1)), enter into one or more multiyear 
contracts for the procurement of not more than a total of 80 C-17 
aircraft.
    (b) Contract Period.--(1) Notwithstanding section 2306b(k) of title 
10, United States Code, the period covered by a contract entered into 
on a multiyear basis under the authority of subsection (a) may exceed 
five years, but may not exceed seven years.
    (2) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed as prohibiting the 
Secretary of the Air Force from entering into a multiyear contract for 
a period of less than seven years. In determining to do so, the 
Secretary shall consider whether--
            (A) sufficient funding is provided for in the future-years 
        defense program for procurement, within the shorter period, of 
        the total number of aircraft to be procured (within the number 
        set forth in subsection (a)); and
            (B) the contractor is capable of delivering that total 
        number of aircraft within the shorter period.
    (c) Option To Convert to One-Year Procurements.--Each multiyear 
contract for the procurement of C-17 aircraft authorized by subsection 
(a) shall include a clause that permits the Secretary of the Air 
Force--
            (1) to terminate the contract as of September 30, 1998, 
        without a modification in the price of each aircraft and 
        without incurring any obligation to pay the contractor 
        termination costs; and
            (2) to then enter into follow-on one-year contracts with 
        the contractor for the procurement of C-17 aircraft (within the 
        total number of aircraft authorized under subsection (a)) at a 
        negotiated price that is not to exceed the price that is 
        negotiated before September 30, 1998, for the annual production 
        contract for the C-17 aircraft in lot VIII and subsequent lots.

            Passed the Senate May 17, 1996.

            Attest:

                                             KELLY J. JOHNSTON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 17, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 2987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-00703]


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

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD


Notice of Members of Senior Executive Service Performance Review 
Board

    This notice announces the membership of the U.S. Nuclear Waste 
Technical Review Board (NWTRB) Senior Executive Service (SES) 
Performance Review Board (PRB).

DATES: Applicable immediately and until December 1, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Send comments concerning this notice to: U.S. Nuclear Waste 
Technical Review Board, Clarendon Blvd., Suite 1300, Arlington, VA 
22201-3367.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neysa M. Slater-Chandler, Director of 
Administration, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0a79666b7e6f782769626b646e666f784a647d7e7868246d657c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="790a15180d1c0b541a1118171d151c0b39170e0d0b1b571e160f">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5 of 
the United States Code, requires each agency to establish, in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel 
Management, one or more SES Performance Review Boards. Section 
4314(c)(4) of Title 5 requires that notice of appointment of board 
members be published in the Federal Register.
    The following executives have been designated as members of the 
Performance Review Board for the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review 
Board:

R. Todd Davis, Associate Technical Director, Nuclear Programs and 
Analysis, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Timothy J. Dwyer, Acting Deputy Technical Director, Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board
Richard E. Tontodonato, Associate Technical Director, Nuclear Weapon 
Programs, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Candice Trummell, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Environmental 
Management, U.S. Department of Energy

    Dated: January 9, 2024.
Neysa M. Slater-Chandler,
Director of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.
[FR Doc. 2024-00703 Filed 1-16-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-AM-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Interagency comments on 2060-AP52 -- RIA Chapters 8 & 2

Higgins, Cortney

to: RobertJ Wayland

03/15/2011 12:32 PM

Cc: Bill Maxwell, Larry Sorrels, Karen Thundiyil, Charlotte Bertrand

2 Attachments

Chapter 8ToxicsRuleRIA3-

11OMBreviewclean_InteragencycommentsunderEO12866_03152011.docx

Chapter2IntroductionToxicsRuleRIA3-

14OMBreviewclean_InteragencycommentsunderEO12866_03152011.docx

Hi Bob,

Please find attached interagency comments on Chapters 8 & 2 of the RIA. Please let me know if you

have any questions.

Regards,

Cortney

________________________________________________ Cortney Higgins, PhD

Policy Analyst

OMB/OIRA/NRE

202.395.7856

chiggins@omb.eop.gov
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4968 

To permanently reauthorize the Rio Puerco Management Committee and 

the Rio Puerco Watershed Management Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2018 

Mr. BEN RAY LUJA ́N of New Mexico (for himself and Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN

GRISHAM of New Mexico) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To permanently reauthorize the Rio Puerco Management 

Committee and the Rio Puerco Watershed Management 

Program. 

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 ‘‘Rio Puerco Watershed 

5 Management Program Reauthorization Act of 2018’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF RIO PUERCO MANAGEMENT COM7 MITTEE. 

8 Section 401(b) of division I of the Omnibus Parks 

9 and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4968 IH

1 104–333; 110 Stat. 4146; 123 Stat. 1108) is amended 

2 by striking paragraph (4). 

3 SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE RIO PUERCO WATER4 SHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. 

5 Section 401(e) of division I of the Omnibus Parks 

6 and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 

7 104–333; 110 Stat. 4148; 123 Stat. 1108) is amended 

8 by striking ‘‘for the 10 fiscal years beginning after the 

9 date of enactment of the Omnibus Public Land Manage10 ment Act of 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘for fiscal year 2017 

11 and each fiscal year thereafter’’. 

Æ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**CALLISTOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC.**

**FORM 10-QFOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2006**

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I am the Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Callisto Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).I am delivering this certificate in connection with the Form 10-Q of theCompany for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 and filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (“Form 10-Q”).

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
|   | Date: August 14, 2006   |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |                    |
|   | /s/ GARY S. JACOB       |
|   |                    |   |
|   | Gary S. Jacob           |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

----
CHAPTER 2 

Issue Category: When Does This Action 

Take Effect?

Page 2-1408

Response to Public Comments

Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions

August 2015

40 CFR Part 131

Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606

This document is part of a larger document.
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents When Does This Action Take Effect? 

11 - WHEN DOES THIS ACTION TAKE EFFECT? 

No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

11.A - EFFECT - GEN SUPP 

No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

11.B - EFFECT - GEN OPP 

No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

11.C - EFFECT - OTHER OPTIONS 

No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

08/04/2015 05:01 PM EDT 2-1408
JONES, JENSEN & CO, LLC

                                                                    EXHIBIT 16.1

                                                     April 1, 1999

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

      Re:   Trimol Group, Inc.

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:

      We were previously the independent accountants for the Trimol Group, Inc.
(formerly Nutronics International, Inc.). On March 30, 1999, we were dismissed
as the independent accountants of Trimol Group, Inc. (formerly Nutronics
International, Inc.) 

      We have read Trimol Group, Inc.'s (formerly Nutronics International, Inc.)
statements included under Items 8(a) and 8(c) of its Form 10-KSB for its fiscal
year ended December 31, 1998 and we agree with such statements.

                                          Sincerely,


                                    By:   /s/ Jones, Jensen & Company, LLC
                                          --------------------------------------