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.                  

###### 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 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 September 25, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 389 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-747, K2024-40.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-22696 Filed 10-1-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### REESE et al. v. JOHNSON et al.

No. 2270.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

March 29, 1932.

Rehearing Denied April 13, 1932.

G. C. Lowe, of Woodville, for appellants.

J. E. Wheat, of Woodville, for appellees.

On Motion for Rehearing.1

O’QUINN, J.

The facts in this case are similar to, and the issues are identical with, those in E. M. Reese et al. v. S. B. Owens et al., 48 S.W.(2d) 697, this day decided by this court, and on the holdings therein announced, the motion to file is refused, and that to set aside the order of affirmance on certificate is overruled.

1

 No opinion filed on original hearing.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00362-CR

ALEXIS BOTELLO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from

Criminal District Court No. 2

of Tarrant County (1376941D)

October 31, 2019

Opinion by Justice Womack

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dana Womack

 Justice Dana Womack
**MAXCO,
      INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES**




**EXHIBIT
      32.2 - CERTIFICATION** ****





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 this annual report on Form 10-K of Maxco, Inc. (the “Company”)
      for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lawrence O. Fields, as Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:




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




(2)
      Information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




Date: 
      July 14, 2006


/s/
                  Lawrence O.
                  Fields
                Lawrence
                  O. Fields
                Chief
                  Financial Officer




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.
Filed 7/15/13 P. v. Lemus CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ALEXANDER LEMUS,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B242965

(Super. Ct. No. YA076553)

(Los Angeles County)

Alexander Lemus appeals from the judgment entered after he pleaded no 

contest to misdemeanor grand theft. (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c).) The trial court 

suspended the imposition of sentence, and placed him on summary probation for 36 

months, with various terms and conditions, including the payment of restitution. After 

conducting restitution proceedings, the court ordered appellant to pay the victim $80,000. 

Appellant worked as a collector, a counter, and a supervisor for Web 

Service Company, which owns and services laundry equipment in multi-unit residential 

complexes. Web lost $80,000 while appellant had access to its collections. Investigators 

and auditors linked the losses to appellant. 

We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel filed a 

brief raising no issues and requesting our independent review pursuant to People v. 

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We notified appellant that he had 30 days in which to 
2

advise us of any claims he wished us to consider. We have received no response from 

appellant. 

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s 

attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. 

(People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 

441.) 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P.J.

YEGAN, J.
3

Eric C. Taylor, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Jolene Larimore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant. 

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
**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




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Western Goldfields Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Raymond Threlkeld, Chief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive 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 results of operations of the Company.




Date:
      August 3, 2007


By:
            /s/ Raymond
              ThrelkeldRaymond
              ThrelkeldChief
              Executive Officer (Principal Executive
              Officer)






A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been
      provided to the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.
United States 

Office of 

Personnel Management

The Federal Government’s Human Resources Agency

 

 

Benefits Administration Letter

Number: 13-306 Date: November 2013 

Subject: Federal Employees Benefits Cost Factors for Fiscal Year 2014 

 

This letter provides the imputed cost factors related to the Federal Employees Benefits Programs 

for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014. 

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAM

The FEHBP cost factors for FY 2014 are as follows:

Quarter

1st $1,274

2nd 1,286

3rd 1,298

4th 1,311

FY 2014 $5,169

RETIREMENT AND LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAMS

Agencies should use the FY 2013 cost factors provided in Benefits Administration Letter 

(BAL) 13-302, “Fiscal Year 2013 Factors for Calculating Imputed Costs” for calculating the FY 2014 

Cost Factors for Retirement and Life Insurance for the first three quarters of FY 2014. 

Those FY 2013 factors can be obtained from the OPM Web site at 

http://www.opm.gov/retirement-services/publications-forms/benefits-administration-letters/2013/13-

302.pdf

A BAL providing the FY 2014 annual imputed cost factors for all civilian benefit programs will be 

posted on the OPM Web site on or before August 15, 2014. 

If you have any questions about this letter, please send an email to FinancialBALs@opm.gov or call

us on 202-606-0606. We look forward to assisting you.

Kim Farington

Associate Chief Financial Officer 

Financial Services
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                               ( print page 80285)                            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 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 September 23, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 379 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-735, K2024-28.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-22676 Filed 10-1-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### R. & R. MOTOR COMPANY, Inc., et al., Appellants, v. DEL RIO BANK & TRUST COMPANY, a Banking Corporation, Appellee.

No. 10618.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Nov. 15, 1939.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 30, 1939.

Ditzler H. Jones, of Uvalde, for appellants.

John L. Dodson, of Del Rio, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed without written opinion.
Report of Independent Registered Public AccountingFirm

 

To the Partners

CWCapital Asset Management LLC

 

We have examined management of CWCapital Asset ManagementLLC (“CWCAM”)’s assertion that CWCAM complied with the servicing criteria applicable to it under paragraph (d)of Item 1122 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the special servicing platform (“Platform”)for commercial mortgage-backed securities transaction that were issued on or after January 1, 2006 for which CWCAM acted as thespecial servicer included in the accompanying Management’s Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria as of andfor the year ended December 31, 2018. CWCAM’s management is responsible for its assertion. Our responsibility is to expressan opinion on management’s assertion based on our examination.

 

Management has determined that the criteria set forth in Sections1122 (d)(1)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(B), (d)(3)(i)(C), (d)(3)(i)(D), (d)(3)(ii), (d)(3)(iii), (d)(3)(iv), (d)(4)(v), (d)(4)(ix), (d)(4)(x),(d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii), (d)(4)(xiii), (d)(4)(xiv), and (d)(4)(xv) are not applicable to the activities performed by CWCAM, asa special servicer, with respect to CWCAM's Platform. The commercial mortgage-backed securities transactions covered by this Platformare those specified in Appendix B in the accompanying Management's Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestationstandards established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan andperform the examination to obtain reasonable assurance about whether management’s assertion is fairly stated, in all materialrespects. An examination involves performing procedures to obtain evidence about management’s assertion. The nature, timing,and extent of the procedures selected depend on our judgment, including an assessment of the risks of material misstatement ofmanagement’s assertion, whether due to fraud or error. We believe that the evidence we obtained is sufficient and appropriateto provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

 

Our examination does not provide a legal determination onCWCAM’s compliance with the specified requirements.

 

Our examination disclosed the following material noncompliancewith servicing criterion 1122(d)(2)(vii)(B) as applicable to CWCAM:

 

With respect to servicing criterion 1122(d)(2)(vii)(B), certainbank reconciliations were not prepared within 30 calendar days after the bank statement cut-off date.

 

 

CohnReznick(logo)

 

In our opinion, except for the material noncompliance describedabove, management’s assertion that CWCAM complied with the servicing criteria applicable to it under paragraph (d) of Item1122 of Regulation AB included in the accompanying Management’s Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria is fairlystated, in all material respects.

 

Wedo not express an opinion or any form of assurance on Management’s Discussion on Material Instance of Noncompliance in ScheduleB to the Management’s Assertion.

 

/s/CohnReznick LLP

Bethesda,Maryland

February28, 2019
1

Ogulei, David

From: Ogulei, David

Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 12:27 PM

To: Ogulei, David

Cc: Woolums, Jane

Subject: Phone Call Record 3/24/14

Call Record 

Caller: David Ogulei 

Date of call: 3/24/14 

Time of call: 11:13 am 

Purpose of Call: To obtain updated information on the commercial availability of the multi-metals CEMS.

Call with: John Cooper 

Phone no. (503) 670-8127 

Company: Cooper Environmental Services, Portland, Oregon 

EPA is looking into requiring a facility to install three MM CEMS units, one on each incinerator, for a period of at 

least one year. I am interested in obtaining updates to the information that Krag Petterson of Cooper

Environmental Services previously provided by email to David Ogulei on 7/17/13 at 5:32 PM. 

1) Have there been any updates on the commercial availability of the multi-metals CEMS?

• Yes, Cooper has expanded substantially. Received outside funding. Cooper has grown by 3 times since early last 

year. 

• Currently building stack units for companies around the world. 

• Shipping one stack unit next month to a Texas company (Chevron?). The TX company will ship/install the unit at 

their facility in Nigeria. 

• Also doing a special project for SCAQMD (secondary lead smelter) involving one stack unit and one ambient air 

unit. Will share contact information for the SCAQMD project. 

• Currently have a strong presence in China (working on mercury). 

2) Can Cooper supply three units within a reasonable timeframe? Within what timeframe can you install, test 

and begin operating all three units?

Yes. This is a project management issue. Building the units would not be a problem. 9 months should be adequate to 

install and begin operating the three units. 12 months should definitely not be a problem. Variables include the types of 

stack modifications and other site-specific facility modifications needed to accommodate the CEMS. 

3) What would be the approximate cost of installing and testing the three units? How much would it be for

one unit? Do you have a sample invoice you can share with us? If you assert confidentialty, your submittal 

may be treated as confidential business information (CBI).

Each unit’s purchase cost is about $250k. Approx. $900k ballpark total for 3 units including installation and testing but 

can’t say for sure. Would need to visit the facility and do an appraisal of what is needed. Cooper will look into possibly 

sharing a copy of a recent invoice for Chevron Nigeria (a $350k project) but they would hide the name of the company. 

###
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CARMEN STARK,

Appellant,

v.

QUICK SELL BUYERS, LLC,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 17

- 00015

- CV

Appeal from

205th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2016DCV2971 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for want of prosecution, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore

dismiss the appeal. We further order that because Appellant is indigent, no order regarding costs

is made. We further order that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 11 TH DAY OF OCTO BER

, 2017.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-1693
WILLIAM DENNIS HUBER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-77-L) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Dennis Huber, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Eastwood Glenn, Phillip Richard Lingafelt, GLENN, FLIPPIN, FELDMANN & DARBY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his state law fraud action as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Huber v. Liberty Univ. , No. CA-94- 77-L (W.D. Va. Feb. 17, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**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**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Castwell Precast Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jason Haislip, President, Chief Executive Officer and 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:

 

(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.

 

| August 18, 2009 | /s/ Jason Haislip |
|-----------------|-------------------|

|   | Jason Haislip |
|--------|---------------|

|   | President and Treasurer |
|--------|-------------------------|

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to Castwell Precast Corporation and will be retained by Castwell Precast Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our 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;
 (b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;
 (c)
    
    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
 (d)
    
    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
  (a)
    
    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
 (b)
    
    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.
  By:
    /s/ Vicki J. DuncombVicki J. DuncombVice President and Chief Financial Officer