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 18, 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 October 10, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 468 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-71, K2025-69.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-24075 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                        -------------------------------

The Board of Directors
Sound Federal Bancorp:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No.
333-61887) on Form S-8 of Sound Federal Bancorp of our report dated April 26,
1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Sound Federal Bancorp and
subsidiary as of March 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated
statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each
of the years in the three-year period ended March 31, 1999, which report appears
in the March 31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of Sound Federal Bancorp.

/s/KPMG LLP

Stamford, Connecticut
June 23, 1999
EXHIBIT 32.1

| 1)   | T he 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. |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:            | /s/ J. Michael Pearson                               |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------|
| August 6, 2009 | J. Michael Pearson                                   |
|           | President and Chief Executive Officer                |
|           |                                                 |
|           |                                                 |
|           |                                                 |
| By:            | /s/ Mark R. Stauffer                                 |
| August 6, 2009 | Mark R. Stauffer                                     |
|           | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
# News

                                Sholl selected as UT-ORII executive director                            

                                Dealing with stress in large-scale additive manufacturing                            

                                Dilling named associate laboratory director for neutron sciences                             

## Filter News

### News Type

            - News Releases(62)
            - Story Tips(49)

### Date

            - (-)2008
            - 2024
            - 2023
            - 2022
            - 2021
            - 2020
            - 2019
            - 2018
            - 2017
            - 2016
            - 2015
            - 2014
            - 2013
            - 2012
            - 2011
            - 2010
            - 2009
            - 2007
            - 2006
            - 2005
            - 2004
            - 2003
            - 2002
            - 2001
            - 2000
            - 1999
            - 1998
            - 1997
            - 1996
            - 1995
            - 1994

## Media Contacts

David  Keim

keimdm@ornl.gov

865.576.9122

Morgan  McCorkle

mccorkleml@ornl.gov

865.574.7308

Sara  Shoemaker

shoemakerms@ornl.gov

865.576.9219

## Connect with ORNL

**

**

**

**

**

**

## Get ORNL News

Subscribe

## UT-Battelle-funded children's home opens in India

December 31, 2008

## Gift of lab equipment fosters fun and learning in the classroom

December 23, 2008

## 2009 DOE INCITE projects allocated at ORNL

December 18, 2008

## Physics society honors six from ORNL

December 17, 2008

## Seven companies selected for ORNL mentor protege program

December 12, 2008

## Isotopes - Banner year

December 9, 2008

## Sensors - On the prowl

December 9, 2008

## Climate - Spotlight on CO2

December 9, 2008

## Energy Efficiency - Heat to power

December 9, 2008

## ORNL's Smith, DOE's Brown winners of Muddy Boot Award

December 4, 2008

### Pagination

-                Current page            1 
-                Page            2 
-                Page            3 
- …
-  Next page» 
-  Last pageLast » 

All ORNL News >
EXHIBIT 3



Form 52-109F1

Certification of Annual Filings



I, Steve Manz, CEO of Freegold Ventures Limited certify that:



1.

I have reviewed the annual filings (as this term is defined in Multilateral Instrument 52-109 Certification of Disclosure in Issuers Annual and Interim Filings) of Freegold Ventures Limited for the period ending December 31, 2006;



2.

Based on my knowledge, the annual filings do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required to be stated or that is necessary to make a statement not misleading in light of the circumstances under which it was made, with respect to the period covered by the annual filings;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the annual financial statements together with the other financial information included in the annual filings fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the issuer, as of the date and for the periods presented in the annual filings;



4.

The issuers other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting for the issuer, and we have:



(a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused them to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance that material information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which the annual filings are being prepared;



(b)

designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused it 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 the issuers GAAP; and



(c)

evaluated the effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by the annual filings and have caused the issuer to disclose in the annual MD&A our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by the annual filings based on such evaluation; and



5.

I have caused the issuer to disclose in the annual MD&A any change in the issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the issuers most recent interim period that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers internal control over financial reporting.



DATED:

March 26, 2007





Per:

Steve Manz



Steve Manz

Chief Executive Officer



1
RIVERCREEK PRESERVE, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, WILLIAM E. GLENN AND PATRICIA W. GLENN , Appellant s ,

v.
AMERIS BANK , Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MO TION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
CASE NO. 1D 14

- 1568

_____________________________/ Opinion filed July 8, 2014. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. Victor Lawson Hulslander , Judge

. Stephen C. Bullock, Lake City; Ste ven R. Browning, Jacksonville; and William H. Rogner, Winter Park , for Appellant s
. Frederick R. Brock, Jacksonville , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. Upon consideration of appellants’ response to the Court’s order of May 6, 2014, the Court has determined that the order on appeal is not one which determines jurisdiction of the person. C f. Keehn v. Joseph C. Mackey and Co. , 420 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction toreview the order by appeal. Moreover, we decline appellan ts’ suggestion that we undertake certiorari review, concluding that appellants have failed to demonstrate
entitlement to such relief. Belair v. Drew , 770 So. 2d 1164, 1166 (Fla. 2000). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. BENTON, CLARK, and OSTERHAUS , J J

. , CONCUR.

2
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40744 Conference Calendar

__________________ LARRY D. BONEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus P. HESTER; DAVID BLACKWELL, Lt., Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-94-CV-556

--------------------- March 1, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Larry D. Boney moves this court for in forma pauperis status to appeal the district court's order dismissing his civil rights action under 41 U.S.C. § 1983. Boney fails to raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. Boney's motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED. Because the appeal is frivolous, the appeal is DISMISSED.No. 95-40744 -2- This court previously cautioned Boney to review any pending appeals in order to avoid the imposition of sanctions. See Boney

v. Collins , No. 95-40742 (Dec. 18, 1995). The district court also warned Boney that he risked the imposition of sanctions if he continued to file meritless complaints. Boney v. Collins , No. CA-C-95-28 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 12, 1995). Accordingly, Boney is BARRED from filing any pro se , in forma pauperis, civil appeal in this court, or any pros se , in forma pauperis , initial civil pleading in any court which is subject to this court's jurisdiction, without the advance written permission of a judge of the forum court; the clerk of this court and the clerks of all federal district courts in this Circuit are directed to return to Boney, unfiled, any attempted submission inconsistent with this bar. APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept

under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicat a, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order andjudgment may be cited under the terms and conditions 10th Cir. R . 36.3.



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 4/18/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

ALLEN JAMES STARKS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. PATRICK WHALEN, Warden, Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-1376 (D.C. No. 95-K-375) (Dist. Colo.)



### ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, McKAYand LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument wouldnot materially assist the determination of this appeal. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is t herefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Mr. Allen James Starks filed this pro se petition f or writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alle ging federal prison officials denied him due process when they f ound him guilty of prison regulation charges. The district court adopted-2-

the magistrate’s recommendation to dismiss the peti tion on the grounds that Mr. Starks did not have a protected li berty interest in remaining free from disciplinary segregation or in being confined in any particular institution. Mr. Starks appeals, and we affirm. We review a district court’s order denying a petiti on for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus de novo. Bowse r v. Boggs , 20 F.3d 1060, 1062 (10th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 313 (1994). The Due Process Clause requires Mr. Starks to first assert the infringement of a protected liberty interest. Kent ucky Dep’t. of Corrections v. Thompson , 490 U.S. 454, 460 (1989). A protected liberty interest may arise from either the Due Proc ess Clause itself or from the laws of a State. Id. Disciplinary segregation does not implicate a protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause itself. Sandin v. Conner , 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2302 (1995). Nor does the Due Process Clause itself create a protected liberty interest in Mr. Starks’ being “ placed in any particular prison.” Meachum v. Fano , 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976). Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that generallya prisoner’s “discipline in segregated confinement [does] not pr esent the type of atypical, significant deprivation in which a sta te might conceivably create a liberty interest.” Sandin , 115 S. Ct. at 2300-01. Mr. Starks raises additional factual and legal issu es for-3-

the first time on appeal which we decline to consid er. See Oyler v. Allenbrand , 23 F.3d 292, 299 n.8 (10th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we AFFIRM substantially for the reason s given by the magistrate and adopted by the district court . The mandate shall issue forthwith.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT Stephanie K. Seymour Chief Judge
2 August 2015

OnPoynt Unmanned Systems LLC,

5 High Mesa Pl ace

Richardson, TX 75080

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington DC 20590

Re: Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 1931

– Request for Missing Information

– Reference 333

Exemption Request.

Dea r Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the “Reform

Act”) and 14 CFR Part 11, OnPoynt Unmanned System s, dba OnPoynt Aerial Systems,

operator of Small Unmanned aircraft Systems (“sUAS”), submits additional information

requested on 27 July 2015 by the FAA

.

1. As requested : B elow is the i nformation on the aircraft OnPoynt intends to use on the

execution of sUAS aerial operations.

DJI Phantom

Weight (Battery included) 2.7 pounds

Hovering Accuracy Vertical: 1.6 feet

Horizontal: 8.2 feet

Max Ascent Speed 13 mph

Max Descent Speed 4.5 mph

Max Speed 49 mph

Max Flight Time 25 minutes

Operating Temperature Range

- 10° to 40° C

Dimensions 14x14 inches

DJI Inspire

Weight (Battery Included) 6.5 pounds

Hovering Accuracy Vertical: 1.6 feet

Horizon tal: 8.2 feet

Max Ascent Speed 11 mph

Max Descent Speed 9 mph

Max Speed 50 mph

Max Flight Time 18 minutes

Operating Temperature Range

- 10° to 40° C

Dimensions 18x18x12 inchesFlame W heel F 550

Frame Weight 1 lb s

Diagonal Wheelbase 550mm

Max Flight Time 20 minutes

Takeoff Weight 6.5 lbs

Recommended Propeller 10 × 3.8in ; 8 × 4.5in

Recommended Battery 3S~4S LiPo

Flame W heel F450

Frame Weight .6 lbs

Diagonal Wheelbase 450mm

Takeoff Weight 3.5lbs

Max Flight Time 18 minutes

R ecommended Propeller 10 × 3.8in ; 8 × 4.5in

Recommended Battery 3S~4S LiPo

Spreading Wings S900

Takeoff Weight 22 lbs

Max speed 35mph

Hovering Time 18min (@ 6.8Kg Takeoff Weight)

Diagonal Wheelbase 900mm

Frame Arm Length 358mm

Center Frame Diameter 2 72mm

Spectra

Wingspan : 48"

Max Take off weight 6lbs

Climb rate 740 fpm

Cruse speed 34 mph

Max speed 55 mph

Stall speed 14 mph

Construction: Carbon fiber, Kevlar & fiberglass

RVJET Flying Wing

Wing span 76.7"

ma x speed 56 mph

Cruse speed 30 mph

Ma x Take Off Weight 10lbs

max flight time 60 min

Construction Foam

Vigilant E

Wing Span 72 ”

Max Speed 50 mph

Cruse Speed 33 mph

Max Take off Weight 11 lbs

max flight time 60 minutes

Construction Foam and Carbon Fiber

Satisfaction of criteria provided in Section 333 of the Reform Act of 2012 provide more

than adequate justification for the grant of the requested exemptions allowing the

commercial operation of the applicant’s sUAS.Sincerely,

Ronald J Poynter

President

OnPoynt Unmanned Systems LLC
a. Landside Planting Berm (above).

b. Waterside Planting Berm (above).

c. Landside and Waterside Planting Berms (above) . Enclosure 3, Figure 3: Planting Berms . The example s shown here assume a basic levee , with no appurtenant structures . Principles are similar for a bank levee . A dditional examples are provided in ETL 1110 - 2 - 571. The intent of a planting berm is to allow for additional vegetation while preserving adequate access and protecting the prism from root - related damage: the result should be a level of reliability equivalent to a standards - compliant, non vegetated condition. Illustrated above are the minimum acceptable dimensions of planting berms and associated vegetation - free zones. The suffi ciency of these minimums must be determined case - by - case: intended vegetation, and site - specific conditions, may require a more robust planting berm. Planting berms may incorporate any existing material that is in excess of the prism , as shown above. The y may be added to an existing levee, included in new construction, or identified within an existing levee section. Configurations differing from those above may be considered: for example, a planting berm need not necessarily be the full height of the lev ee prism .
Exhibit 31.1

SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATION

I, Vladimir Vaskevich, certify that:

1. 	I have reviewed this 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 of Riverdale Mining 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 the 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. 	I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 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; and

c. 	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. 	I have disclosed, based on my 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; 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.



|Date: November 13, 2007 | VLADIMIR VASKEVICH                                                             
|----------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        | Vladimir Vaskevich, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer



---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 6, 2018

No. 04-18-00129-CV

Stanton P. BELL, et al.,

Appellants

v.

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION, et al.,

Appellees

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CI22093

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Pursuant to section 51.014(d) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and Rule 

28.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we GRANT the cross-petitions for permission 

to appeal from an interlocutory order. Cross-notices of appeal are deemed to have been filed on 

the date of this order and the cross-appeals will proceed as accelerated appeals. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 28.3(k).

We ORDER the district clerk to file the clerk’s record in this court on or before April 

16, 2018. We ORDER the court reporter to file the reporter’s record in this court on or before 

April 16, 2018. 

We order the clerk of this court to file a copy of this order with the District Clerk of 

Bexar County, Texas. See id. We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this 

order on the district clerk, the court reporter, and all counsel.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of April, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court