alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. Jeff Vanderlip 

Technical Director 

Tiarco Chemical Company 

1300 Tiarco Drive. SW. 

Dalton, GA 30721 

JUL 2Z 101~ 

Re: Your request that the EPA revoke Wego Chemical and Mineral Corporation·s conditional 

exemption !'rom testing under TSCJ\ section 4 for CASRN 127-68-4 

Dear Mr. Vanderlip: 

In your letter dated June 25.2014, you requested that the EPA revoke the conditional exemption 

granted to Wego Chemical and Mineral Corporation (Wego) with respect to testing obligations 

for benzenesuUOnic acid, 3-nitro-sodium salt (I: 1) {CASRN 127-68-4) pursuant to the EPA ·s 

final rule: Testing of Certain High Production Volume Chemicals; ·n1ird Group of Chemicals 

(76 FR 65385, Oct. 21. 2011 ). The EPA granted Wcgo ·s exemption request on the basis of data 

submitted by Tiarco Chemical Company. Wego·s exemption request dated .Apri13. 20\4, and 

the EPA ·s response dated May 16. 2014. are available in the docket for this action at 

\V\.Vw.regulations.gov (see: EPA-IIQ-OPPT -2009-0241 and EPA-I IQ-OPPT -2009-0254, 

respectively). 

You requested that the Agency revoke Wego·s exemption for lack of cooperation by Wego in 

negotiating compensation to Tiarco based on Tiarco's data. However, the EPA lacks authority to 

revoke We go ·s exemption for the reason requested. The EPA regulations at 40 CFR 790.93(a) 

specify that the EPA can rescind an exemption for the following reasons: 

790.93 Termination of conditional exemption. 

(a) The EPA shall tenninate a conditional exemption if iL determines that: 

( 1) The test which provided the basis for approval of the exemption application has not 

been started by the deadlines for initiation of testing adopted in the test rule or modified 

in accordance with §790.55; or 

(2) Data required by the test rule have not been generated in accordance with the test 

standards or submitted in accordance with the deadlines for submission of test data that 

were adopted in the test rule or modified in accordance with §790.55; or 

.·--·. 
(3) The testing has not been conducted or the data have not been generated in accordance 

with the Good Laboratory Practice requirements in part 792 of this chapter. 

These reasons do nol inclt1de failure lo cooperate in negotiating compensation. 

Rather, the remedy available to Tiarco under TSCA §4(c)(3) is to initiate a reimbursement 

hearing under 40 CFR 791.20, which under §791.20(a) is appropriate··[ w]hen persons subject to 

a test rule are unable to reach an agreement on the amount or method of reimbursement for test 

dat<\ development.'' 

If you have <!ny questions about this letter, please contact Mr. John Schaeffer of my staff 

(schaefTer.juhn@~pa.gov; 202-564-8173). 

Sincerely, 

Paul Lewis, Ph.D. 

Chief. Chemica! Information 

and Testing Branch (!viC 7405M)
#### GAMMILL v. STATE.

No. 18800.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Feb. 24, 1937.

E. C. Gammill, pro se, of Huntsville, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The .conviction is for passing a forged instrument; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for five years.

The count of the indictment upon which the verdict is based alleges that the appellant “did then and there knowingly * * * pass as true to Kathleen Coe a *230forged instrument in writing of the tenor following:



The effect of the above allegation is to charge that the name of “J- W. Shaw” was the forgery. If it was the purpose of the State to charge that the indorsement was the forgery, then it was necessary that the indictment contain an averment to that effect. Cochran v. State, 115 Tex.Cr.R. 201, 30 S.W.(2d) 316; Landrum v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 132, 42 S.W.(2d) 1026.

The evidence in the present instance shows that the appellant forged the Dame of E. M. Wilson on the back of the check, but this was not the forgery which the State charged in the indictment. There is nothing in the record to show that the handwriting on the check was not that of J. W. Shaw. Neither is there £.ny evidence to the effect that Shaw was a fictitious person.

The State’s Attorney before this court concedes that the facts are insufficient to support the averments in the indictment, and in this view we are constrained to concur.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the quarterly report of Purio Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date
indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:





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





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




Dated:  May 15,
2009





By:       /s/
Daryl English


Daryl
English


President, Chief
Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer,


Principal
Accounting Officer, Secretary, Treasurer
United States

Office of

Personnel Management

The Federal Government’s Human Resources Agency

Retirement and Insurance Service

Benefits Administration Letter

 

Number: 99-226 Date: December 11, 1999

Subject: Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program: Service Area Reduction

for Prepaid Health Plan of New York, Enrollment Code QE

The State of New York has approved a service area reduction (Broome and Tioga Counties) for 

Prepaid Health Plan, enrollment code QE, effective April 30, 2000. Accordingly, after that date,

Prepaid Health Plan is not authorized to operate a health plan in those counties.

To continue to receive benefits under the FEHB Program, enrollees in Broome and Tioga Counties

must transfer to another participating health plan. Because we were notified near the close of open

season, we expect agencies to be flexible in allowing enrollees to change to other plans. The effective

date of the new coverage will be the first day of the first full pay period in January (January 2

for most Federal employees).

A special notice was sent to enrollees advising them to make a change to a new plan. We have

attached a copy of that letter for your information. 

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Attachment

Abby L. Block, Chief

Insurance Policy

 and Information Division

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Civil Service Federal Employees Federal Employees Federal Employees

Retirement Group Life Health Benefits Retirement

System Insurance Program System
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TATYANA EVGENIEVNA

DREVALEVA,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

PETER O ’ ROURKE,

Defendant. No. 19

- 17286

D.C. No. 3:19

- cv

- 01454

- WHA

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 9, 2020 * *

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva appeals pro se from the district court’s

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 18 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 17286

judgment dismissing her action under the Administrative Procedures Act related to

her appointment for a position with the D epartment of Veterans Affairs. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s

dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Mangano v. United States , 529

F.3d 1243, 1245 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Drevaleva’s action because it is

precluded by the Civil Service Reform Act (“CSRA”). See Brock v. United States

,

64 F.3d 1421, 1425 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The CSRA is the exclusive remedy for all

prohibited personnel actio ns.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Drevaleva’s post

judgment Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 (b) motion because Drevaleva failed

to demonstrate any basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty.,

Or. v. ACand

S, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262

- 63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of

review , and grounds for reconsideration under Rule 60 ).

All pending motions are denied as moot

.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 79936]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22530]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Office of the Director; Notice of Charter Renewal

    In accordance with Title 41 of the U.S. Code of Federal 
Regulations, section 102-3.65(a), notice is hereby given that the 
Charter for the Fogarty International Center Advisory Board was renewed 
for an additional two-year period on August 31, 2024.
    It is determined that the FICAB is in the public interest in 
connection with the performance of duties imposed on the National 
Institutes of Health by law, and that these duties can best be 
performed through the advice and counsel of this group.
    Inquiries may be directed to Claire Harris, Director, Office of 
Federal Advisory Committee Policy, Office of the Director, National 
Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 1000, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20892 (Mail Stop Code 4875), Telephone (301) 496-2123, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#375f5645455e44545b775a565e5b19595e5f19505841"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6d050c1f1f041e0e012d000c040143030405430a021b">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: September 26, 2024.
Lauren A. Fleck,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-22530 Filed 9-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 B2 Health, Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A-1 for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Quam, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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 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 result of operations of the Company.  _/s/ John Quam___________ John Quam Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer October 16, 2008
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10004

Conference Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Willis James Duvall, Jr., 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:19-CR-58-1

Before Graves, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Willis James Duvall, Jr., 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). Duvall has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 24, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-10004 Document: 00515873291 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2021
No. 20-10004

2

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur 

with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42. 2.

Case: 20-10004 Document: 00515873291 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2021
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OFALTERNATIVE ASSET MANAGEMENT ACQUISITION CORP.

This certification
  is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies
  the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the Form 10-Q) for the quarter
  ended March 31, 2008, of Alternative Asset Management Acquisition Corp. (the
  Issuer).

I, Paul D. Lapping, the Principal Financial Officer
  of the Issuer, certify that to the best of my knowledge:

(i)     the Form 10-Q fully
  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
  Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

(ii)     the information
  contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
  condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

|Dated: May 13, 2008 | /s/ Paul D. Lapping
|------------------- | -------------------
|                    | Paul D. Lapping    

---
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:*                         October 2, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean 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 September 25, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 363 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-744, K2024-37.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-22690 Filed 10-1-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I,
the undersigned officer of Hauge Technology, Inc.
(formerly Entree Acquisition Corporation)  (the
"Company"),  hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2012 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                             /s/ Leif Hauge
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer
Date: April 15, 2013
# Official Journal C 119A/5 Ap

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 119A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 615 April 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 119A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 615 April 2018

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Council |
| 2018/C 119 A/01 | Notice of vacancy CONS/AD/136/18 | 1 |
| 2018/C 119 A/02 | Notice of vacancy CONS/AD/137/18 | 20 |
| 2018/C 119 A/03 | Notice of vacancy CONS/AD/138/18 | 39 |
| 2018/C 119 A/04 | Notice of vacancy CONS/AD/139/18 | 57 |
| 2018/C 119 A/05 | Notice of vacancy CONS/AD/140/18 | 76 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Council

2018/C 119 A/01

Notice of vacancy CONS/AD/136/18

1

2018/C 119 A/02

Notice of vacancy CONS/AD/137/18

20

2018/C 119 A/03

Notice of vacancy CONS/AD/138/18

39

2018/C 119 A/04

Notice of vacancy CONS/AD/139/18

57

2018/C 119 A/05

Notice of vacancy CONS/AD/140/18

76

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
From: Raj Rao/RTP/USEPA/US 

To: "Kymn, Christine J." <Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov> 

Cc: Anna Wood/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Howard Hoffman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Paul Balserak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, 

 Lisa Sutton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 08/09/2010 03:35 PM 

Subject: SIP Fix Rule edits per 1 pm call today 

Hi Christine, 

Please find below edits per our discussion at 1pm. 

1. EPA is fine with the CEQ language edits. 

2. State hearing process

We accept the substance of the interagency comments on the part of the SIP Call preamble concerning 

making recommendations that the states may streamline their state hearings. Here is revised text: 

Christine, we would like to clarify that the APA is irrelevant in this context. This section concerns STATE 

hearings and whether the STATE hearing is OK under the CAA. The CAA comes into play b/c it requires 

a state hearing, and further requires that the state hearing have adequate notice. 

The APA applies to only FEDERAL hearings. It has no relevance here, which, again, concerns only 

STATE hearings. 

3. Parallel processing:

We are not inclined to accept further interagency edits on the part of the SIP Call preamble concerning 

parallel processing. The edits solicit comment on our authority to conduct parallel processing. These 

edits are unacceptable because: 

a. Parallel processing is well-established. It is authorized by regulation, under 40 CFR part 51 appendix 

V section 2.3: 

EPA has employed it many times. Here are a few examples: 

b. Soliciting comment on parallel processing is not only unnecessary, it would be detrimental because it 

could chill the expressed desire of some states' to meet the tight SIP deadlines under this rulemaking and 

the Tailoring Rule through parallel processing. 
Please let us know asap that all is well and you can clear the packages, so we can send the final files 

through ROCIS. 

Thanks for all your help !! 

raj 

Raj Rao, P.E. 

Group Leader, NSRG 

OAQPS/AQPD(MD- C504-03) 

109 TW Alexander Drive 

RTP, NC 27709 

919-541-5344 

919-541-5509 fax 

Note: Positions or views expressed here do not represent official EPA policy. Interagency deliberative 

and Confidential.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.

______________________ 

2013-1055

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 90/008,143.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

ROBERT S. RIGG, Vedder Price P.C., of Chicago, Illinois, argued for appellant. With him on the brief were 

TIMOTHY NITSCH; and REBECCA G. RUDICH, of Washington, 

DC. 

MICHAEL S. FORMAN, Associate Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, 

Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were 

NATHAN K. KELLEY, Deputy Solicitor, and WILLIAM 

LAMARCA, Associate Solicitor. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 
 

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, BRYSON, and PROST, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 July 22, 2013 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

Date Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk