alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 9, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 81923]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-23323]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID SBIR Phase II Clinical Trial 
Implementation Cooperative Agreement (U44 Clinical Trial Required).
    Date: November 7, 2024.
    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G41, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Video Assisted Meeting).
    Contact Person: Tara Capece, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National 
Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G41, Rockville, MD 
20892, 240-191-4281, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#543735243137312066143a3d353d307a3a3d3c7a333b22"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fa999b8a9f999f8ec8ba94939b939ed4949392d49d958c">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 3, 2024.
Lauren A. Fleck,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-23323 Filed 10-8-24; 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>
#### Cargill Coal Company, Respondent, vs. Valentine, Appellant.

*April 9*

May 7, *1957.*

*601For tire appellant the cause was submitted on the briefs of *Johns, Roraff, Pappas & Flaherty*of La Crosse.

For the respondent there was a brief by *Hale, Skemp, Hanson & Schnurrer,*and oral argument by *Joseph D. Becker,*all of La Crosse.

Steinle, J.

The defendant contends that the written phrase in the contract “to be financed,” clearly indicates an intention that the plaintiff would accept the purchase price in the form of deferred payments, and that since the times for payment are not fixed, the contract is indefinite as to payment, and hence is invalid under the rule of *Buck v. Pond*(1905), 126 Wis. 382, 105 N. W. 909; *Poole v. Tannis*(1908), 137 Wis. 363, 118 N. W. 188, 118 N. W. 864; and *Bast v. Sproll*(1922), 176 Wis. 371, 187 N. W. 223. It is the position of the plaintiff that the contract calls for cash payment from the defendant upon the completion of the installation of the furnace.

It was the view of the small claims court, as expressed in its decision, and which was sustained by the circuit court, that “the complaint, construed in the most favorable light to the plaintiff, is sufficiently definite and certain to state a cause of action. The court feels that the method of payment can, from the face of said contract, be interpreted to mean that an immediate cash payment be made in full, and that the phrase ‘to be financed’ can be construed to refer to financing by other persons.”

*602We are of the opinion that considered as a whole, the language of the contract is reasonably or fairly susceptible of different constructions, and that it is therefore ambiguous. Where there is ambiguity in a contract, the sense in which the words therein are used is a question of fact. *Woodall v. Democrat Printing Co.*(1947), 250 Wis. 348, 27 N. W. (2d) 437. It is the rule that in determining the meaning of a writing which is ambiguous, it is proper to receive evidence to ascertain the situation and surrounding circumstances in order that the court may put itself in the place of the parties and then ascertain their intention. *Jones v. Holland Furnace Co.*(1925), 188 Wis. 394, 206 N. W. 57.

If the language of an instrument is ambiguous, the court is not restricted to a consideration of the face of the instrument in ascertaining the intent of the parties. *Ludtke v. Compound School Dist.*(1944), 246 Wis. 235, 16 N. W. (2d) 562.

When the sufficiency of a complaint is challenged by demurrer, every reasonable intendment and presumption is to be made in favor of the complaint, and the plaintiff is entitled to all reasonable inferences which can be drawn from the facts pleaded. *Conrad v. Evans*(1955), 269 Wis. 387, 390, 69 N. W. (2d) 478.

The court properly overruled the demurrer. If at the trial it is established that by the words “to be financed” it was intended that the seller was to accept payments in instalments, and that it was not to be paid in cash by the buyer when the installation was completed, then the doctrine of the cases relied on by the defendant as.above referred to, will apply.

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed.
Exhibit 99.10

SRK
Consulting (Canada)
Inc.
1500, 155 University
Avenue
Toronto, Ontario,
Canada
M5H
3B7

T:
+1.416.601.1445
F:
+1.416.601.9046

toronto@srk.com
www.srk.com





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 the report entitled
"Prefeasibility Study Report for the Wheeler River Uranium Project
Saskatchewan, Canada" dated October 30, 2018, and (2) all other
references to the undersigned included or incorporated by reference
in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines
Corp.





Dated: March 13,
2020











(Signed)
“Mark
Liskowich”


__________________________


Mark Liskowich,
P.Geo.


SRK Consulting
(Canada) Inc.











Local Offices:
Saskatoon
Sudbury
Toronto
Vancouver
Yellowknife
Group Offices:
Africa
Asia
Australia
Europe
North America
South America
**Exhibit 8.1**October 2, 2007Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6944

JAMES L. JACK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; A. DAVID ROBINSON, Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-00-69-3)

Submitted: September 21, 2000 Decided: September 29, 2000

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James L. Jack, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The parties consented to have this matter decided by a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994).

2

PER CURIAM:

James L. Jack seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2000).* We have reviewed the record and the opinion

of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Jack v. Angelone, No.

CA-00-69-3 (E.D. Va. June 21, 2000). We deny Jack’s motion for

transfer of custody. 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
1)
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Northfield Bancorp, Inc.;2)
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3)
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 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)
    
    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; andc)
    
    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
 5)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 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;
andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ Steven M. KleinSteven M. KleinExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) 30
#### City of Milwaukee, Respondent, v. Hurless and another, Appellants.

*June 2*

June *26, 1959.*

*611For the appellants there were briefs by *Herbert L. Mount,*attorney, and *Robert A. Hess*of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Mount*and by *Mr. John A. Keck,*all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent there was a brief by *Walter J. Matti-son,*city attorney, and *John F. Cook,*assistant city attorney, and oral argument by *Mr. Cook.*

Dieterich, J.

In determining whether a complaint is subject to a demurrer, the most-liberal interpretation possible must be given to it. If the complaint states any facts upon which the plaintiff can recover, it must be held to state a cause of action.

*612Considerable freedom is allowed to parties in stating in their pleadings the facts relied upon to establish their rights.

In *Hall v. Bell*(1910), 143 Wis. 296, 299, 127 N. W. 967, it is said:

> “If the pleading, giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference, expressly or by such inference, or both, states facts showing the plaintiff to be entitled to some relief within the competency of the court to grant, it states a good cause of action for such relief.”

See also *Manning v. School District No. 6*(1905), 124 Wis. 84, 102 N. W. 356, and *Conrad v. Evans*(1955), 269 Wis. 387, 69 N. W. (2d) 478.

The complaint alleges facts showing the fiduciary capacity under which the defendant Hurless received the money; that the transactions involved are so complicated that the remedy for the plaintiff at law would be inadequate; and that a demand was made for an accounting which was refused or not rendered.

We conclude that, under our liberal rules of pleading and giving the complaint the benefit of every reasonable 'inference, a cause of action is stated. Therefore, it devolves upon the defendants to answer the amended complaint.

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed.

Martin, C. J., took no part.
#### First Wisconsin Trust Company, Trustee, Plaintiff, vs. Taylor and another, Appellants: MacLaren, Executrix, Respondent.

*December 9, 1942*

January *12, 1943.*

*128For the appellants there was a brief by Lees, *Bunge & Fuller*of La Crosse, and oral argument by *Hubert V. Fuller.*

*Harvey A. Malig*of Milwaukee, for the respondent.

Fairchild, J.

Appellants’ chief claim is that the deeds in question were given to Alice Louise Chandler as executrix *129to facilitate the transfer of a clear title to the lands on their sale, but the trial court did not take this -view of the matter and the evidence supports the court’s conclusion. Appellants had a. contingent remainder which they conveyed by quitclaim deed to the life tenant. They are thus barred from any share in the land or the proceeds of the sale, now in the trust fund, unless for some reason the deeds were ineffective.

By sec. 230.35, Stats., “expectant estates are descendible, devisable and alienable in the same, manner as estates in possession,” and in the case of *Meyer v. Reif,*217 Wis. 11, 258 N. W. 391, it was held that this allowed the alienation of contingent remainders. Appellants could convey their interests, and by the terms nf the quitclaim deeds did relinquish all their “estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever” to the grantee, Alice Louise Chandler. See *Estate of North, ante,*p. 72, 7 N. W. (2d) 705. There is a further contention that the deeds were to Alice Louise Chandler in her capacity as executrix, but this cannot be supported. Mrs. Chandler, the grantee, held her life estate and also under the deeds the contingent remainders of the appellants which by statute were alienable and so could be devised. See Restatement, 2 Property, sec. 162, illus. 7. The trust fund here is the equivalent of the land and is to pass to those entitled to the land. Sec. 296.34, Stats. No reason appearing for holding the deeds in question invalid, the judgment of the trial court decreeing that the executrix of the estate of Mrs. Chandler was entitled to the fund must be affirmed.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.

Barlow, J., took no part.
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATIONI, Steven M. Klein, certify that:1) I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Northfield Bancorp, Inc.; 2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofcircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 13, 2007   /s/ Steven M. Klein Steven M. Klein  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Table 1 - Oxidizer A & B Technical Specifications

Specification Oxidizer A Oxidizer B Comments

Oxidizer Design

Tag BN-4701A BN-4701B

Manufacturer J Zink J Zink Identical Manufacturer

Year 1976 1976 Identical Year

Type Fire Tube, Waste Heat Boiler Fire Tube, Waste Heat Boiler Identical Type

Combustion Air Forced Draft – One Fan Forced Draft – One Fan Identical Design

MFG Garden City Fan – Model 54 Garden City Fan – Model 54 Identical Model

Design Air Flow (max.) 21,415 acfm @ 61” wc 21,415 acfm @ 61” wc Identical Design Flow

Firebox Dimensions 15 ft Diameter/52’-10” L 15 ft Diameter/52’-10” L Identical Dimensions

Boiler Bank Dimensions 9 ft diameter x 26” L 9 ft diameter x 26” L Identical Dimensions

Auxiliary Fuel Natural gas , pipeline grade

912 Btu/SCF LHV

Natural gas , pipeline grade

912 Btu/SCF LHV

Identical Supply

Burner Manufacturer J Zink J Zink Identical Manufacturer

Burner Model B-O-9128717-801/A VS-0-34

Total Heat Release 0-70 MMBTU/Hr* 0-80 MMBTU/Hr *“A” Oxidizer has a two stage gas supply. After

the first stage fuel valve is fully open the

second stage valve opens and supplies

remaining fuel.

Minimum Fuel Turndown 3 MMBTU/Hr 25 MMBTU/Hr “A” Oxidizer two stage burner allows greater

turndown of auxiliary fuel to save natural gas.

Oxidizer Operating Parameters

Normal Control Temperature 950 +/- 25 degC 950 +/- 25 degC Identical for each oxidizer. Normal operating

temperature of oxidizer firebox.

Low Temp Alarm 875 degC 875 degC Identical for each oxidizer. Minimum operating

temperature of oxidizer firebox.

Low Temp. Vent Interlock 856 degC 856 degC Identical for each oxidizer. Interlock isolates all

vents from oxidizer if combustion temperature

falls below this temperature. TCEQ Permit

Minimum Temperature 849 degC

Acid Recovery & Scrubber Design

Manufacturer Tankinetics Tankinetics Identical Manufacturer

Acid Recovery Section 12’ ID x 22’-2” H 12’ ID x 22’-2” H Identical Dimensions

Scrubber Section 12’ ID x 28’-9” H 12’ ID x 28’-9” H Identical Dimensions

Stack 5’ ID x 34’-6” H 5’ ID x 34’-6” H Identical Dimensions

Acid Recovery Spray Nozzles 30 Type BETE TF28FCN

Spray Nozzles

30 BETE TF28FCN Spray

Nozzles

Identical type and number

Scrubber Spray Nozzles 60 Type BETE TF32FCN

Spray Nozzles

60 BETE TF32FCN Spray

Nozzles

Identical type and number

Acid Recovery & Scrubber Operating

Parameters

Scrubber Normal Liquid Flow 3250-3900 gpm 3250-3900 gpm Identical system design.

Normal Scrubber pH Control Set point 8.5-9.0 s.u. 8.5-9.0 s.u. Identical for each oxidizer. TCEQ Permit

Minimum 8.0 s.u.

L/G Ratio Alarm (Scrubber Liquid Recirculation

GPM/ Gas Flow ACFM)

Low Alarm 0.06

Low Low Alarm 0.05

HON Limit 0.053

Low Alarm 0.06

Low Low Alarm 0.05

HON Limit 0.052

Identical process alarms for each oxidizer.
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 383 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-47, K2025-46.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-24039 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P