alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

### Fulton, Abby

From: Gustafson, Brian <Brian.Gustafson@state.sd.us> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 8:41 AM To: Fulton, Abby Cc: Rombough, Kyrik; brad.schultz@state.sd.us Subject: Question Regarding Permitting Fees for SD iSIP Acti on

Abby:

I’m not sure what the issue is? The reason the fees in ARSD 74:37:01 are not part of the SIP is becaus e the fees under this rule are paid to implement our Title V progra m for major stationary sources. The Title V program is an approved program and not part of the SIP. The application fe e you reference is part of the fees necessary to im plement that program. PSD like non-Title V stationary sources (m inor) programs are funded using the 105 grant and m atching state general funds.

Let me know if you have any further questions.

Brian Gustafson Engineer Manager III Air Quality Program

From: Fulton, Abby [ mailto:Fulton.Abby@epa.gov ] Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 12:32 PM
To: Rombough, Kyrik
Cc: Clark, Adam Subject: Question Regarding Permitting Fees for SD iSIP Act ion

Hi Kyrik, We are getting very close to proposing South Dakota ’s iSIP action for the 2008 ozone, 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5, 2010 NOx, and 2008 Pb but I do have one item I’m requesting y our feedback on.

Element (L), Permitting Fees, require SIPs to conta in provisions for funding sources for processing PS D and permit applications. I know SD has an application fee rule under ARSD 74:37:01:03:01, however, this has not b e approved into the SIP. I was wondering if SD might have are any o ther funding sources for processing PSD and permit applications (such as legislative appropriations and/or grants).

One possible avenue we can take is to explain in ge neral terms the funding sources for permit applicat ion review. I think I can connect the dots by saying SD’s budget funds DENR staff which covers the cost of reviewing permi t applications. So, I would need to know where in the budget DENR F TE are funded and if there’s some sort of statutory provision providing authority to administer (not sure if this is the proper term?) the budget.

Let me know if you need additional clarification or if you have another option that may cover this ele ment.2 Thanks so much.

Abby L. Fulton Air Quality Planning Unit U.S. EPA, Region 8 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, CO 80202-1129 fulton.abby@epa.gov (303) 312-6563
#### Hansen, Plaintiff in error, vs. The State, Defendant in error.

*September 19■*—

October *7, 1952.*

*297
      *Lester J. Knuese*of Milwaukee, for the plaintiff in error.

For the defendant in error there was a brief by the *Attorney General*and *William A. Plats,*assistant attorney general, *William J. McCauley,*district attorney of Milwaukee county, and *Aladin A. De Brozso,*deputy district attorney, and oral argument by *Mr. Plats*and *Mr. De Brosso.*

*298Fairchild, J.

The point sought to be raised by the defendant’s motion to quash is not before the court on this appeal. Sec. 355.09, Stats. 1947; *State v. Warfield,*184 Wis. 56, 198 N. W. 854; *Post v. State,*197 Wis. 457, 222 N. W. 224; *Ciolocomio v. State,*198 Wis. 18, 222 N. W. 825. Although defendant was in court with his attorney several different times, no constitutional objection was asserted until after the trial had begun and the jury had been selected. There was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, and there was no error committed in making the ruling complained of. The arresting officer testified in substance that, having been admitted to the house by-the mother of the defendant, the officers talked with the defendant where he lay near his clothing, saw plaster dust or particles on the floor which corresponded with the type of plaster which had been knocked off the casing of the door in the drugstore, and having noted this, placed him under arrest. He, was then taken to the police station where the officers found in his pocket a key and a coupling. Each was identified as having been in the drugstore, the key belonging to the store, and the coupling belonging to the janitor. These items just referred to were offered in evidence. There had been no previous motion to suppress any evidence, and when offered there was no objection to their being received. The argument advanced by the defendant attacks the ruling made by the court in denying a motion to quash the information. We hold under the circumstances shown to exist that any objection to the prosecution and the sufficiency of the information not having been raised before the impaneling of the jury, the right to object to the prosecution had been waived. The question raised by the motion to quash not being properly before the court, and the evidence showing beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant, the judgment must be affirmed.

*299
      *By the Court.*— Judgment of the municipal court of Milwaukee county is affirmed.
#### Continental Insurance Company and others, Appellants, vs. Badger Paint & Hardware Stores, Inc., Respondent.

*October 9*

November *3, 1953.*

For the appellants there were briefs by *H. O. Wolfe*and *Wolfe, O’Leary & Kenney,*all of Milwaukee, attorneys, and *Vilas H. Whaley*of Racine of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. H. 0. Wolfe*and *Mr. Whaley.*

*184For the respondent there was a brief by *Whyte, Hirsch-boeck & Minahan,*attorneys, and *Victor M. Harding*of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Harding.*

Fairchild, J.

This case was argued and submitted with the case of *Commerce Ins. Co. v. Badger P. & H. Stores,*ante, p. 174, 60 N. W. (2d) 742, and is ruled by the decision therein.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
# L_2011097EN.01000101.xml

| 12.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 97/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 97/1

---

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 348/2011

of 8 April 2011

implementing Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 of 12 April 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (1), and in particular Article 11a(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 12 April 2005, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 560/2005. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 12 April 2005, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 560/2005.

| (2) | In view of the developments in Côte d’Ivoire, the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 should be amended, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In view of the developments in Côte d’Ivoire, the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 should be amended,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The entities listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

Done at Brussels, 8 April 2011.

For the Council

The President

MARTONYI J.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 95, 14.4.2005, p. 1.

1

---

ANNEX

ENTITIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1

| 1. | SIR (Ivorian Refining Company) |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | Autonomous Port of Abidjan |
| 3. | Autonomous Port of San Pedro |
| 4. | CGFCC (Coffee and Cocoa Trade Management Committee) |

1.

SIR (Ivorian Refining Company)

2.

Autonomous Port of Abidjan

3.

Autonomous Port of San Pedro

4.

CGFCC (Coffee and Cocoa Trade Management Committee)

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KAIJIN XAVIER SCOTT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 177 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of November, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2930

To guarantee the right of individuals to receive social security benefits under

title II of the Social Security Act in full with an accurate annual

cost-of-living adjustment.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 26, 2000

Mr. SANTORUM introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To guarantee the right of individuals to receive social security benefits under title II of the Social Security Act

in full with an accurate annual cost-of-living adjustment.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Social Security Guar5 antee Act’’.
2

•S 2930 IS

1 SEC. 2. GUARANTEE OF FULL SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS

2 WITH ACCURATE ANNUAL COST-OF-LIVING

3 ADJUSTMENT.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the

5 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treas6 ury shall issue to each individual who, as of such date,

7 is receiving benefits under title II of the Social Security

8 Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and, thereafter, to each indi9 vidual who applies for such benefits, a certificate rep10 resenting a legally enforceable guarantee—

11 (1) of the monthly amount of benefits that the

12 individual will receive under that title, as determined

13 on the date of the issuance of the certificate; and

14 (2) that the benefits will be adjusted—

15 (A) not less frequently than annually on

16 the basis of an accurate determination of the

17 increase in the cost-of-living of the individual;

18 and

19 (B) as a result in a change in the eligibility

20 status of the individual under that title.

21 (b) ENTITLEMENT.—Any certificate issued under the

22 authority of this section constitutes budget authority in

23 advance of appropriations Acts and represents the obliga24 tion of the Federal Government to provide for the payment

25 to the individual to whom the certificate is issued benefits

26 under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401
3

•S 2930 IS

1 et seq.) in the amounts set forth in the certificate and

2 adjusted thereafter as described in subsection (a)(2).

Æ
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 18, 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 October 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 385 to Competitive Product List*. Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-51, K2025-50.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-24041 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FLASHNET COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           7,045
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,574
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (181)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,703
<PP&E>                                          27,624
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (9,841)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  39,585
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,519
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        68,776
<OTHER-SE>                                     (59,120)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    39,585
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,251
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,877
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,547
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,274
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (30,373)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (30,373)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (1,656)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (32,077)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (2.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.59)


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

ODESSA BROWN,

Petitioner

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA),

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 311 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 2nd day of February, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
---

Exhibit 99.11

CONSENT OF ENGINEER

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The undersigned hereby consents to (1) the references to the
undersigneds name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on
Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp. in connection with (a) the report entitled
Technical Report on the Denison Mines Inc. Uranium Properties, Saskatchewan,
Canada dated November 21, 2005, as amended on February 16, 2006, (b) the report
entitled Technical Report on the Sue D Uranium Deposit Mineral Resource
Estimate, Saskatchewan, Canada dated March 31, 2006, (c) the report entitled
Technical Report on the Midwest Uranium Deposit Mineral Resource and Mineral
Reserve Estimates, Saskatchewan, Canada dated June 1, 2005, as amended on
February 14, 2006, and (2) all other references to the undersigned included or
incorporated by in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp.



Dated: March 12, 2015

/s/ James W. HendryJames W. Hendry, P.Eng.
Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.

---
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, Daulat Nijjar, President, Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer of Dakota Gold Corp. (the “Company”), certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended October 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and  results  of operations of the Company.








Date: December 13, 2010





/s/ Daulat Nijjar

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

Daulat Nijjar

President, Chief Executive Officer,

Secretary, and Treasurer

(Principal Executive Officer,

Principal Financial Officer, and Principal Accounting Officer)








This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
# L_2012019EN.01001201.xml

| 24.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 19/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/12

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 57/2012

of 23 January 2012

suspending the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 187, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 (2) opened a standing invitation to tender for the 2011/2012 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN code 1701 at a reduced customs duty. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 (2) opened a standing invitation to tender for the 2011/2012 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN code 1701 at a reduced customs duty.

| (2) | The availability of supply on the Union sugar market has improved, therefore further reduction of the import duty will not be necessary and the submission of tenders should be suspended. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The availability of supply on the Union sugar market has improved, therefore further reduction of the import duty will not be necessary and the submission of tenders should be suspended.

| (3) | In order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In order to give a rapid signal to the market and to ensure efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

| (4) | The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chairman,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In accordance with Article 2(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 the submission of tenders is suspended for the partial invitation to tender ending on 25 January 2012, 1 February 2012 and 15 February 2012.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

Done at Brussels, 23 January 2012.

For the Commission

The President

José Manuel BARROSO

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 318, 1.12.2011, p. 4.

2

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40782

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VERONICA RAMOS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:16-CR-836-1

Before KING, ELROD, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Veronica Ramos 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).

Ramos has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant 

portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Ramos’s response. We concur 

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

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 28, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40782 Document: 00514812219 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2019
No. 17-40782

2

appellate review. Ramos largely complains that she received ineffective 

assistance of counsel during her sentencing. Although her guilty plea reserved 

her right to raise such a challenge, ineffective-assistance claims are 

appropriately raised on collateral review under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, not direct 

appeal. Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-06 (2003).

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: 17-40782 Document: 00514812219 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/28/2019