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

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 2736-046]

                    On February 14, 2024, Idaho Power Company submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) evidence of the date on which the certifying agency received the certification request for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification filed with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, in conjunction with the above captioned project. Pursuant to 40 CFR 121.6 and sectionc 4.34(b)(5), 5.23(b), 153.4, or 157.22 of the Commission's regulations,[1]                                          we hereby notify the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality of the following:                

*Date of Receipt of the Certification Request:*                     September 12, 2023.                

*Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request:*                     One year (September 12, 2024).                

If the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before the above date, then the agency certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

Dated: February 21, 2024.

Debbie-Anne A. Reese,

Acting Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             18 CFR 4.34(b)(5), 5.23(b), 153.4, and 157.22.                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2024-04046 Filed 2-26-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED BY**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of Rockwood Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Seifi Ghasemi,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.   TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  February 26, 2010         |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  |   |
| /s/ SEIFI  GHASEMI               |   |
| Seifi  Ghasemi                        |   |
| Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

This certificationaccompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18or any other provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determine d 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. 96-20675

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PAUL ROOSEVELT BANKS, also known

as Paul Robert Banks,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas, Houston

95-CR-219-1

_________________________________________________________________ May 6, 1997

Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Paul R. Banks, Jr. was convicted of conspiracy to possess with

intent to distribute cocaine and aiding and abetting the possession

with intent to distribute cocaine. A pro se notice of appeal was

filed with this court, indicating that Banks intended to appeal the

judgment. The notice of appeal, however, was signed by Deandraline

Banks, who indicated that she had the permission of Paul R. Banks,

Jr. to sign the document.2

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) states that “[a]

notice of appeal filed pro se is filed on behalf of the party

signing the notice and the signer’s spouse and minor children, if

they are parties, unless the notice of appeal clearly indicates a

contrary intent.” Fed. R. App. P. 3(c) (emphasis added). Paul R.

Banks, Jr. clearly failed to comply with this rule. Moreover,

there is no indication in the record that Banks was unable to sign

the notice of appeal for himself, nor is there any indication of

the reason underlying his failure to sign the notice of appeal on

his own behalf. The presentence report reflects that Paul R.

Banks, Jr. was never married, and we know nothing of the

relationship between Paul R. Banks, Jr. a nd Deandraline Banks--

other than Banks’s assertion that she is a relative. Under these

circumstances, we hold that Banks’s failure to comply with the

requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) is fatal

to his appeal and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

See Mikeska v. Collins

, 928 F.2d 126, 126 (5th Cir. 1991) (holding

that notice of appeal failed to perfect appeal on behalf of pro se

defen dants who were named in the notice but who failed to sign

notice).

In reaching this holding, we are aware that this court

liberally con strues papers filed by p ro se litigants; however,

where, as here, there is no suggested explanation for the failure3

to comply with the rule, we find no basis to allow the appeal to

proceed. There may be circumstances, not present in this appeal,

that would justify the failure of a p ro se appellant to sign his

notice of appeal; however, we need not reach that issue today.

Because we conclude that the notice of appeal filed with this

court is defectiv e, we are without jurisdiction over this appeal

and, accordingly, the action is

D I S M I S S E D.
Exhibit 99

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO §906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, in his capacity as the Chief
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of 4-D Neuroimaging (the "Company") hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge on the date hereof, that the annual report on
Form 10-K for the annual ended September 30, 2002 (the "Form 10-K"), filed concurrently herewith by the Company, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
Company's financial condition at the end of such fiscal year and the Company's results of operations for such fiscal year.

|/s/ D. SCOTT BUCHANAND. Scott Buchanan Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial OfficerDated: January 14, 2003 |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
#### Elbert KIMBERLIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee (two cases).

Nos. 28136, 28140.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 7, 1956.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, -State’s Attorney, Austin, for the State.

*671PER CURIAM.

The offense is the unlawful sale; of intoxicating liquor in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $100. .

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### SPARKS v. STATE.

No. 26522.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 28, 1953.

Plarvey P. Shead, Longview, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the' State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the possession of marijuana; the punishment, two years.

In view of our disposition of this case, a statement of the facts is not deemed necessary.

By one bill it is shown that the County Attorney, among other things, said: “ * * * and I am most thankful that the person charged with its possession is not a resident, and is not a citizen’ of Harrison County. $ * * ”

By another bill it is shown that the County Attorney, among other things, said: “ * * * he didn’t want the bugs to get it, but wanted to sell it to the school children of Gregg County. * * * ”

We have diligently searched the record before us and fail to find any evidence from which the prosecutor might logically deduce the foregoing statement of fact to the jury.

*572The trial court should have sustained appellant’s objection to this argument and instructed the jury not to consider it. A prosecutor will not be permitted to inject new facts into the case during the course of his argument and then play upon the prejudices of the jury through the use of these facts which are not a part of the record.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> $US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         220,800
<SECURITIES>                                 3,727,800
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,948,600
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,955,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,500
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,901,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,955,300
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               184,200
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                62,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                122,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                       300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            121,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   121,800
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.01


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO



18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Computer Software Innovations, Inc. (the
Company), each certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his or her knowledge on the date of this certification:



| | 1. | The amended quarterly report of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Nancy K. HedrickNancy K. HedrickChief Executive OfficerDate: August 22, 2005/s/ David B. DechantDavid B. DechantChief Financial OfficerDate: August 22, 2005
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 July 7, 2017

Order 

Clerk

July 7, 2017

155811(38)

SONG YU and SANG CHUNG, Plaintiffs-Appellees, SC: 155811

v COA: 331570

Ingham CC: 14-001421-CK

FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiffs-appellees to extend the time 

for filing their answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The answer

submitted on June 30, 2017, is accepted for filing.
#### Nugon McCOY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27304.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 26, 1955.

Ramsey & Ramsey, by Ben Ramsey, San Augustine, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is the sale of whiskey in a dry area; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $500.

The only question presented for review is jury misconduct in that they secured new and additional evidence during their deliberations.

From the statement of facts on motion for new trial it appears that four jurors testified that during their deliberations one of their number stated that the appellant had bootlegged all his life or for a number of years. One of the jurors testified, “Seems like it might have been mentioned one time,” and the sixth juror stated that he did not remember the statement having been made but did not deny that it was made.

In Rogers v. State, 252 S.W.2d 465, 466, we said, “Since this testimony as to what occurred in the jury room was not controverted, no issue of fact was raised for the trial court’s determination.”

In Jordan v. State, 258 S.W.2d 85, we reversed a conviction for the unlawful sale *677of whiskey where one of the jurors told his fellows during their deliberation that he had personally on a prior occasion bought whiskey from the appellant. In that case we went further and said that the statement of the jurors that they did not consider such new evidence in reaching their verdict did not cure the error occasioned by its receipt.

This was the receipt of a new and harmful fact against the accused which violated his constitutional right to be confronted by the witnesses against him.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

WOODLEY, Judge

(dissenting).

The same question is raised here as in Moore v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 275 S.W.2d 673, and the motion for new trial is deficient in the same particulars as in that case.

My views are stated in the dissenting opinion in the Moore case. I respectfully dissent from the order reversing the conviction.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 40490 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
SIMON ALBERTO ALANIS

- GUERRA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:12

- CR

- 889

- 1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Simon Alberto Alanis

- Guerra has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Alanis

- Guerra h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 21 , 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-40490 Document: 00512540593 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2014presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion fo r leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 13-40490 Document: 00512540593 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/21/2014
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Brandenburg, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-2970.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of De cisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2016-O HIO -2970
T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLEE , v. B RANDENBURG , A PPELLANT . [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Brandenburg, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-2970.] Criminal law—Felony Sentencing—Standar d of review upon appeal of sentence— R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)—Judgment reverse d, and cause remanded for application of State v. Marcum

. (Nos. 2015-1330 and 2015-1489—Submitte d April 7, 2016—Decided May 17, 2016.)
A PPEAL from and C ERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Butler County, Nos. CA2014-10-201 and CA2014-10-202, 2015-Ohio-2573.

__________________ {¶ 1} In State v. Marcum , ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-1002, ___ N.E.3d ___, we held that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence only when it clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is (1) contrary to law or (2) unsupported by the record. Id . at ¶ 7.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 {¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals in the instant case is reversed,
and the cause is remanded to the c ourt of appeals for application of Marcum

. O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , and O’N EILL , JJ., concur.

_________________ Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Lina N. Alkamhawi, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Charles M. Conliff, for appellant.

_________________
# C O L E( ) CHEMICA L

Februar y16 , 201 0 c.: >

• " ! Th e Honorabl e Ra

yLaHoo d Secretary> '••"''< 3 Unite d State s Departmen t o f Transportatio n ^ 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , S E ,— , o Washington , D.C
. 2059 0 ' ^ SubjectjJHaned a Combinatio n Service s Allocatio n Proceedin g DOT-OST-2010-001 8 Dea rSecretar

yLaHood : A s a business partne ro f Continenta l Airline s an d Continenta l Micronesia , I a m writin g i n suppor t o f th e carriers ' join t applicatio n t o provid e ne wservice t o Tokyo Haned a Airpor t fro m Ne wYork/Newar k

(Continental ) an d fro m Guam (Continenta l Micronesia)
. I applau d you reffort s o n negotiatin g a n histori cope n skie s agreemen t wit h Japa n whic h wil l lead t o a n openin g o f Haned a airpor t fo rU.S
. carrie rservice late rthi s year . I no wurg e yo u t o selec

t Continenta l t o provid e service connectin g th e U.S.' s financia l an d commercia l cente ra t Ne wYork/Newar k

wit h Tokyo' s central/downtow n airport
. Libert y- Haned a service woul d provid e a critica l lin k betwee n tw o o f th e world' s largest economie s an d wil l hel p boost trad e an d commerce across th e Ne wYork/Newar k region
. Continenta l ha

s prove n it s commitmen t t o th e Asia n regio n an d t o nonsto p Tokyo service , an d Haned a wil l b e a valuabl e additio n t o ou rregio n an d t o Continental' s network
. Th e ne

wYork/Newar k

economy , million s o f American s o n th e U.S
. east coast , th e airline' s thousand s o f employee s an d hundred s o f thousand s o f U.S
. consumer s wil l benefi t fro m Continental' s propose d service an d wil l wor k togethe rt o mak

e Libert y Internationa l Airpor

t - Haned a service a success muc h like Tokyo Narita ha s bee n an d wil l continu e t o b e a successfu l rout e fro m Newark Liberty
. lards , )onn a F
. Col e President/CE O Col e Chemica l Chemical s - Lubricant s - Resin s - Safet yProduct s - Specialt yGase s IS O 9001:200 8 Certitie d - Certifie d M/WB E Email : colechem@colechem.co m We b Site : www.colechem.co m Corporat e Office : 150 0 S
. Dair yAshford , Suit e 45 0 - Houston , TX 7707 7 - (713 ) 465-265 3 - Fa x(713 ) 461-346 2
MEMORANDUM

DATE: April 6, 2015

TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR-2013-0602

FROM: Rob Lawrence

EPA/Region 6/PD

SUBJECT: April 1, 2015 Presentation as part of a panel at the Gulf Coast Power Association 

conference. The presentation discussed the Proposed Carbon Power Plan for 

Existing Power Plants.

SUMMARY

A presentation was made by EPA as part of a panel at the Gulf Coast Power Association 

conference. The presentation discussed the Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power 

Plants. The meeting was in Houston, Texas.

ATTENDEES

Participants: The class meeting was conducted in a large hotel ballroom and there was 

no registration process for any individual presentation or panel.

EPA Participant: Rob Lawrence (Region 6 Energy Policy Advisor)
#### J. M. McCAULEY, as Warden of the Washington State Penitentiary at Walla Walla, Washington, Appellant, v. J. R. PALMER, Appellee.

No. 8525.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Sept. 24, 1937.

G. W. Hamilton, Atty. Gen., and W. A. Toner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

E. D. Phelan, of Seattle, Wash., for appellees.

Before GARRECHT, MATHEWS, and HANEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon the authority of Hall v. People of the State of California (C.C.A.9) 79 F.(2d) 132, and cases there cited, the order herein appealed from is reversed and this case is remanded to the District Court with directions to dismiss the application for habeas corpus, without prejudice to any right of appellee to apply to any state court of the state of Washington for habeas corpus or for such other writ, remedy or relief as in such state court may be available; mandate to issue forthwith.