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.                  

###### Surface Transportation Board

The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from the University of Colorado Boulder (WB24-49—9/23/24) for permission to use data from the Board's 1990-2018 unmasked Carload Waybill Samples. A copy of this request may be obtained from the Board's website under docket no. WB24-49.

The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.

*Contact:*                     Alexander Dusenberry, (202) 245-0319.                

Eden Besera,

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. 2024-22812 Filed 10-2-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
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.                  

###### Office of Government Ethics

# AGENCY:

Office of Government Ethics (OGE).

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given of the appointment of a member to the OGE Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board.

# DATES:

*Applicable date:*                         October 8, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shelley K. Finlayson, Acting Director, Chief of Staff, and Program Counsel, Office of Government Ethics, 250 E Street SW, Suite 750, Washington, DC 20024; Telephone: 202-482-9300; TYY: 800-877-8339; FAX: 202-482-9237.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal law at 5 U.S.C. 4314(c) requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management at 5 CFR part 430, subpart C and § 430.310 thereof in particular, one or more Senior Executive Service performance review boards. As a small executive branch agency, OGE has just one board. In order to ensure an adequate level of staffing and to avoid a constant series of recusals, the designated members of OGE's SES Performance Review Board are being drawn, as in the past, in large measure from the ranks of other executive branch agencies. The board shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of each OGE senior executive's performance by their supervisor, along with any recommendations in each instance to the appointing authority relative to the performance of the senior executive. This notice updates the membership of OGE's SES Performance Review Board as it was most recently published at 88 FR 75591 (Nov. 3, 2023).

The following official has been appointed to the SES Performance Review Board of the Office of Government Ethics: Danae M. Serrano, Ethics Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission. The remaining Board members are Sean Dent, Senior Deputy General Counsel, Federal Housing Finance Agency, and Peter J. Constantine, ADAEO, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Transportation.

Approved: October 2, 2024.

Shelley K. Finlayson,

Acting Director, U.S. Office of Government Ethics.

[FR Doc. 2024-23212 Filed 10-7-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6345-02-P
ex10-1.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 








NOTE AMENDMENT







This Amendment, dated as of ___________ 2014 (this “Amendment”), by and between California Gold Corp. (the “Company”) and the investor set forth on the signature page hereto (the “Noteholder”), has been executed for the purpose of amending that certain 10% Convertible Promissory Note issued by the Company to the Noteholder on February 7, 2014 and/or March 3, 2014, as applicable (each, a “Note”).







In consideration of the premises, the mutual agreements contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which hereby are acknowledged, the undersigned agree as follows:







1.           The “Maturity Date” in Section 1.01 of the Note is hereby extended to November 2, 2014.







2.           Except as modified and amended herein, all of the terms and conditions of the


Note shall remain in full force and effect.







3. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall, for all purposes, be deemed an original and all of such counterparts, taken together, shall constitute one and the same Amendment.







4. This Amendment and the rights of the parties hereto shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, without giving effect to principles of conflict of laws.







[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS IMMEDIATELY]











  





  











  













 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have duly executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.







 


 


NOTEHOLDER                                                                CALIFORNIA GOLD CORP.












_______________________________                   By:_______________________________


Name:                                                                                      Name:


Title:                                                                                        Title:
Exhibit
32








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the
undersigned officer of Lodestar Mining, Incorporated (the “Company”), hereby
certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) , as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operation of the Company.





A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, another document authenticating,
acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version 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/ Ian McKinnonIan
      McKinnon, Chief Executive Officer, Director, Principal
                Executive
      Officer, Principal Financial Officer, Principal
                Accounting
      Officer, Treasurer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7640

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

AKBAR TAYLOR, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief 

District Judge. (3:05-cr-00330-JRS-1) 

Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Akbar Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Akbar Taylor appeals a district court order denying 

his motion for a sentence reduction submitted under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and the district 

court’s order and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, 

because the amendments to the Guidelines did not affect his 

offense level, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. 

See United States v. Taylor, No. 3:05-cr-00330-JRS-1 (E.D. Va. 

July 28, 2008). We note Taylor was not entitled to a 

resentencing hearing. See United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247 

(4th Cir. 2009) (“[A] district judge is not authorized to reduce 

a defendant’s sentence below the amended guideline range.”). We 

also deny Taylor’s motion for remand. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
1

Meeting Summary: PHMB Focus Meeting

U.S. EPA & Lonza Inc.

September 19, 2012, 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM

Room S-8671, 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Participants

Lonza Inc.: Kari Mavian, Nick Jermstad, Bob Sloan, Nick Skoulis*

EPA: Timothy Dole, Pat Jennings, Steve Weiss, Najm Shamim, Srinivas Gowda, Michelle Centra, Jonathan 

Chen, Lance Wormell, Donna Randall*, Rebecca von dem Hagen

*participated via phone

Meeting Summary

On September 19, 2012 AD hosted its first registration review Focus Meeting with PHMB technical 

registrant Lonza Inc. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss outstanding issues from the registration 

review Preliminary Work Plan (PWP), published in June 2012, in order to inform the Final Work Plan

(FWP), scheduled to publish in December 2012. During the meeting the Agency and industry discussed 

the impacts of the product chemistry of the 20% and 96.3% TGAIs on the anticipated registration review 

data requirements. Also, the registrant provided information on existing data generated for 

registrations in the EU and the Agency provided clarification on the overlap of registration review and 

the post-RED Data Call-In. 

Next Steps

The Agency intends to issue the FWP in December 2012 continuing to anticipate that data be required 

on both the 20% and 96.3% TGAIs with the caveat that if information is provided to the Agency proving 

that polymer characterization is the same for both TGAIs, then data are anticipated to be required on

the more toxic TGAI only.
vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

Douglas 

Parraguirre 

Cherry 

GISTARVE RUFFIN, JR., 

Appellant, 

No. 68248 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEALS 

These are pro se appeals from judgments of conviction. 

Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Jerome M. Polaha, Judge. 

The notices of appeal were untimely filed. NRAP 4(b); NRS 

34.575(1); NRAP 26(a); NRAP 26(c). Because an untimely notice of appeal 

fails to vest jurisdiction in this court, Lozada v. State, 110 Nev. 349, 352, 

871 P.2d 944, 946 (1994), we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to consider 

these appeals, and we 

ORDER these appeals DISMISSED. 

cc: Hon. Jerome M. Polaha, District Judge 

Gistarve Ruffin, Jr. 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

ER 1947A .:16MF 

arkriaLifille Stittsiegit .13
Exhibit 10.2

                     CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS No. 1\1

Nicosia, Cyprus                                                December, 1, 2014

BETWEEN: BETAFOX CORP, represented by Director Giorgos Kallides (the "Seller")

AND: HOME AND BEYOND (the  "Buyer"),  represented by Director Mark Kostandi (the
"Buyer") have concluded the present Contract as follows:

1. SALE OF GOODS

Seller shall sell, to buyer the following goods:
multi-colored candles with colored flames in assortment

The range of products for delivery of each batch is defined in the invoice.

2. CONSIDERATION
Buyer shall accept the goods and pay the sum for the goods.

3. IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
Identification  of the goods to this agreement  shall not be deemed to have been
made until both buyer and seller have  specified  that the goods in question are
to be appropriated to the performance of this agreement.

4. PAYMENT ON RECEIPT
Buyer shall make payment for the goods at the time when, and at the place where,
the goods are received by buyer.

5. RISK OF LOSS
The risk of loss from any casualty to the goods,  regardless of the cause, shall
be on seller until the goods have been accepted by buyer.

6. WARRANTY OF NO ENCUMBRANCES
Seller  warrants  that the goods are now free,  and that at the time of delivery
shall be free from any security interest or other lien or encumbrance.

7. WARRANTY OF TITLE
Furthermore,  seller warrants that at the time of signing this agreement  seller
neither knows, nor has reason to know, of the existence of any outstanding title
or claim of title hostile to the rights of seller in the goods.
<PAGE>
8. RIGHT OF INSPECTION
Buyer  shall  have the right to  inspect  the goods on  arrival  and,  within 10
business days after delivery,  buyer must give notice to seller of any claim for
damages on account of condition,  quality or grade of the goods,  and buyer must
specify  the  basis of the claim of buyer in  detail.  The  failure  of buyer to
comply with these  conditions  shall  constitute  irrevocable  acceptance of the
goods by buyer.

The parties have executed this agreement at Cyprus, December, 01, 2014 year

This Contract is concluded and enters into force upon signature by the Parties.

SELLER


Director Giorgos Kallides              /s/ Giorgos Kallides
                                       -----------------------------------

BUYER


Director Mark Kostandi                 /s/ Mark Kostandi
                                       -----------------------------------
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Texas Department of Public Safety v. MMC

Appellate case number: 01-22-00008-CV

Trial court case number: 21-DCV-281103

Trial court: 434th District Court of Fort Bend County

On January 28, 2022, appellant, the Texas Department of Public Safety, filed a Motion 

for Abatement, asking this Court to abate the appeal pending the resolution of two cases in the 

Texas Supreme Court: Ex parte K.T., Cause No. 20-0977, and Ex parte Ferris, Cause No. 21-

0075. The certificate of conference said appellee did not advise whether he opposed the motion. 

More than ten days have passed since the motion was filed and no response has been filed.

We grant the motion and abate the appeal.

Unless the parties file, no later than July 1, 2022, a motion to reinstate or a report 

advising the Court of the status of the Supreme Court proceedings, this appeal may be reinstated 

without further notice.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active 

docket. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___________/s/ Julie Countiss________________

Acting individually 

Date: February 15, 2022
August 10, 2011 

Mr. Stephen M. Schiller 

Colonel, US Army (Retired) 

Senior Vice President 

Training & Security Group International, Inc. 

P.O. Box 2603 

Weatherford, TX 76086 

Dear Mr. Schiller: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§ 91.205(h) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can’t 

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can’t Process Your Request 

We entered your May 24, 2011, exemption request on behalf of Training & Security Group 

International, Inc. into the public docket (No. FAA-2011-0685), but we are unable to process 

your request any further. The information you sent doesn’t comply with the requirements of 

14 CFR 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us 

all the following: 

 The reasons why the exemption wouldn’t adversely affect safety or how the 

exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule 

from which you seek an exemption. 

 Section 91.205(h) satisfies safety issues by requiring instruments, equipment and 

lighting modifications for night vision goggles (NVG) operations. Your request only 

addresses the ability of the pilot and associated training needed to operate the aircraft 

while using night vision goggles (NVG). How do you intend to meet the instrument, 

equipment and lighting requirements of § 91.205(h)? 

 The field approval process is not authorized for aircraft lighting modifications for the 

purpose of NVG operations. Aircraft lighting modifications for NVG operation is a 

major change to the aircraft type design and affects the operation of the aircraft. The 

aircraft lighting system as a whole is affected by the modification and is categorized 

as a night vision imaging system. How do you intend to address operating limitations 

and information necessary for safe operation? A supplemental type certificate would 

be required for lighting modifications for the purpose of NVG operations. 
2 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we 

receive this required information from you. Please note that 14 CFR 11.63(d) requires you to 

send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the 

exemption. 

If We Don’t Hear From You 

If we don’t hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda D. Courtney 

Manager, Aircraft and 

 Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
#### TRUITT v. STATE.

No. 19304.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 12, 1938.

Houston McMurry, of Henrietta, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for driving an automobile on a public highway while appellant was intoxicated.

Appellant waived a jury under the formalities required by the statute, and entered a plea of guilty before the'court. The punishment assessed was a fine of $50 and imprisonment in the county jail for five days. The court also incorporated as a part of the judgment a revocation of appellant’s driver’s license for a period of six months.

No bills of exception or statement of facts are brought forward. We discover nothing which requires that the judgment be disturbed, and it is affirmed.
Order entered September 10 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00855
- CV
DEUTSCHE BANK NATION AL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE, IN TRUST FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDE RS OF MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL I TRUST 2006
- NC
- 5, MORTG AGE PASS
- THROUGH CERTIFICATES , SERIES 2006 NC5, Appellant
V. KINGMAN HOLDINGS, LL C, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE M A HO GANY 1587 LAND TRUST, Appellee On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429
- 04363
- 2013



### O RDER This appeal is scheduled for oral submission on September 15, 2015. On August 31, 2015, Kevin Alaimo filed a “ Motion to Intervene” as an appellee in this appeal . On September 8, 2015, a ppellant filed a response in opposition to Alaimo’s motion

. On Septe mber 9, 2015, Alaimo filed his reply to appellant’s response in opposition to his motion to intervene.
We DENY Alaimo’s motion to intervene as an appellee in this appeal.
/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE PRESIDING JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6825

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT EUGENE FEDD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-96-492, CA-97-3818-5-6)

Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 27, 1998

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Eugene Fedd, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Eugene Fedd seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. United States v. Fedd, Nos. CR-96-492; CA97-3818-5-6 (D.S.C. May 22, 1998). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-20409

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAMOUNE LANIER JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-733-1

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

February 21, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ramoune Lanier Johnson has appealed his conviction of having

possessed a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We affirm.

Johnson contends that the evidence was insufficient to

support his conviction. Specifically, he argues that § 922(g)(1)

cannot constitutionally be construed to proscribe interstate

possession of a firearm when the only interstate nexus is the

fact that it traveled across a state line at some time in the
No. 01-20409

-2-

past. He concedes, however, that this court has rejected his

contention in several cases.

In fact, “[t]his court has repeatedly emphasized that the

constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) is not open to question,” based

on “the mere fact that the ammunition [or firearm] traveled

through interstate commerce in the past.” United States v. De

Leon, 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir. 1999). The court iterated its

previous ruling that United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995),

does not constitutionally invalidate § 922(g)(1). Id.; see

United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Accordingly, Johnson’s argument based on Lopez lacks merit. 

Johnson also relies on Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848

(2000), as showing that Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S.

563 (1977), and Rawls are no longer good law. This argument also

lacks merit. See United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518

(5th Cir. 2001), pet. for cert. filed, No. 01-7524 (Dec. 20,

2001). Therefore Johnson’s conviction of violating § 922(g)(1)

must be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.