alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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      8, 2008 | J.      Michael Pearson                        |
|                | President      and Chief Executive Officer     |
|                |                                           |
|                |                                           |
|                |                                           |
| By:                 | /s/      Mark R. Stauffer                      |
| August      8, 2008 | Mark      R. Stauffer                          |
|                | Vice      President and Chief FinancialOfficer |
#### Migdalina Vasquez, Respondent, v City of New York, Defendant, and James Zacharakos et al., Appellants.

[774 NYS2d 728]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants James Zacharakos and Chris Varveris appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated April 2, 2003, as, in effect, denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for failure to file a note of issue.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The appellants moved to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff failed to file a note of issue in response to a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 (b) (3). However, the 90-day period runs from the date of actual receipt of the demand by the plaintiff or by some person authorized to receive such demand by the plaintiff, rather than from the date of service *(see Kun Tiam Seow v Yu Dan Li,*1 AD3d 570 [2003]; *176-60 Union Turnpike v Klinger,*284 AD2d 380 [2001]; *Ponce v Ricupero,*282 AD2d 589 [2001]; *Indemnity Ins. Co. v Lamendola,*261 AD2d 580, 582 [1999]). The appellants failed to establish that the plaintiff or anyone acting on her behalf received the 90-day demand. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion to dismiss *(see Roth v Black Star Publ. Co.,*302 AD2d 442 [2003]; *Weber v Kessler,*224 AD2d 520 [1996]; *Divjak v New York Hosp.-Cornell Med. Ctr.,*219 AD2d 695 [1995]). Prudenti, P.J., Florio, H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.
#### Ische, Appellant, vs. Ische, Respondent.

*664For the appellant: *E. J. Herte*and *Gold & McCann,*all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Bernard F. Mathiowetz*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 201 (Thursday, October 17, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 83684]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-23977]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreement Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of filing of the following 
agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit 
comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreement to 
the Secretary by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4d1e282e3f28392c3f340d2b202e632a223b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1f4c7a7c6d7a6b7e6d665f79727c31787069">[email protected]</span></a>, or by mail, Federal 
Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, Washington, DC 20573. 
Comments will be most helpful to the Commission if received within 12 
days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register, and the 
Commission requests that comments be submitted within 7 days on 
agreements that request expedited review. Copies of agreement are 
available through the Commission's website (www.fmc.gov) or by 
contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#512523303534303f303d2822382211373c327f363e27"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4e3a3c2f2a2b2f202f22373d273d0e28232d60292138">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Agreement No.: 201157-009.
    Agreement Name: USMX-ILA Master Contract Memorandum of Settlement.
    Parties: International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO and 
United States Maritime Alliance, Ltd.
    Filing Party: Jim Campbell, The Lambos Firm LLP.
    Synopsis: The Amendment extends the term of the 2018-2024 USMX-ILA 
Master Contract from October 1, 2023, through and including January 15, 
2025.
    Proposed Effective Date: 10/8/2024.
    Location: https://www2.fmc.gov/FMC.Agreements.Web/Public/AgreementHistory/8153.

    Dated: October 11, 2024.
Alanna Beck,
Federal Register Alternate Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2024-23977 Filed 10-16-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 14

- 0789 Filed December 24, 2014

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs.

MICHAEL PAUL EATON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Bremer County, James M. Drew

( plea ) and Rustin T. Davenport ( sentencing ) , Judge s

.

Michael Eaton appeals his convict ions for possession of a controlled

substance with intent to deliver, methamphetamine; possession of a controlled

substance third offense, marijuana ; eluding; and carrying weapons. AFFIRMED.

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau,

Assis tant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tyler J. Buller, Assistant Attorney

General, and Kasey Wadding, County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.2

MCDONALD, J.

Michael Eaton pleaded guilty to and was convicted of possession of a

controlled substance with intent to deliver, methamphetamine; possession of a

controlled substance third offense, marijuana; eluding; and carrying weapons; all

in violation of Iowa Code sections 124.401(1)(c)(6), 124.401(5), 321.279(3)(a)

and (b), and 724.3(1) (2011). On appeal, he contends his counsel rendered

constitutionally deficient performance by failing to file a motion in arrest of

judgment when the district court failed to advise Eaton o f the immigration

consequences of his plea s . To establish his claim for ineffective assistance of

counsel, Eaton is required to establish counsel breached a duty owed Eaton and

prejudice ar ose from the breach. “[T]o satisfy the prejudice requirement, the

defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s

errors, he or she would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going

to trial.” State v. Straw , 709 N.W.2d 128, 138 (Iowa 2006). There is no record

evidence i n support of the claim. 1 Accordingly, the claim is denied on the merits.

The conviction s are affirmed without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26.

AFFIRMED.

1 We note that filing a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal is unnecessary to protect the defendant’s right to seek relief. See Iowa Code § 814.7 (2013) (“The claim need not be raised on direct appeal from the criminal proceedings in order to preserve the claim for postconviction relief pu rposes.”). A party “may, but is not required to, raise an ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal .

. . if the party has reasonable grounds to believe that the record is adequate to address the claim on direct appeal.” Iowa Code § 814.7(2) . Presen ting an underdeveloped claim on direct appeal not only wastes the party’s resources and judicial resources, it poses a litigation risk to the defendant, who may receive an adverse judgment on a potentially meritorious claim due to the presentation of a cla im on an underdeveloped record. The record is sufficiently developed in this case for a decision on the merits.3
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 June 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. 	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are 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. 	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; 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: September 21, 2007 | VLADIMIR VASKEVICH                                                             
|------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         | Vladimir Vaskevich, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer





---
#### Macon and Brunswick Railroad Company, plaintiff in error, *vs.*The State of Georgia, *ex rel.*John H. Pate, defendant in error.

Justices of tlie Peace have not jurisdiction, under the provisions of the 4023 section of the Code, to abate as a nuisance a bridge constructed by a railroad company over a navigable stream.

Nuisance. Justices of the Peace. Jurisdiction. Rivers. Railroads. Before Judge Cole. Pulaski County. At Chambers. December 26th, 1872.

For the facts of this case, see the decision.

Whittle & Gustin, for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant.

Warner, Chief Justice.

This was an application made by Pate, as relator in behalf of the State, to two Justices of the Peace in Pulaski county, to have a bridge, constructed and maintained by the Macon and Brunswick Railroad Company, across the Ocmulgee river in said county abated as a public nuisance, alleging that said river is a public highway and navigable stream, and (hat said bridge tends to the immediate annoyance, of the citizens in general, as it is an insufferable barrier and obstruction to the navigation and use of said- river. When the case was called before the Justices, the defendant demurred to their jurisdiction to abate the nuisance, as prayed for, which demurrer was sustained. The plaintiff sued out a *certiorari*and brought the case before the Superior Court, and upon the hearing thereof, it sustained the *certiorari*and remanded the case back to the Justices with instructions to submit the question of nuisance to twelve freeholders, according to the provisions of the 4023d section of the Code; to which ruling of the Court the defendant excepted. The question made in this record is, whether the two Justices of the Peace had the power and an*157thority, under the law, to abate the nuisance complained of, under the provisions of the 4023d section of the Code. The nuisance complained of does not tend to the immediate annoyance of the citizens in general, because it is manifestly injurious to the public health and safety, or because it tends greatly to corrupt the manners and morals of the people, but it is the alleged obstruction of a navigable river by the erection and maintenance of a railroad bridge by a chartered corporation of this State. In our judgment, the Justices of the Peace did not have jurisdiction and authority to abate the nuisance complained of, as provided in the 4023d section of the Code, the same not being such a nuisance as is contemplated by that section, or embraced within it: See *South Carolina Railroad Company vs. Moore &*Philpot, 24 *Georgia Reports,*418.

Let the judgment of the Court below be reversed.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 83878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24112]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL OP-OFA-148]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information 202-564-5632 or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.
    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) Filed 
October 7, 2024 10 a.m. EST Through October 11, 2024 10 a.m. EST 
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.
    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make 
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's 
comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxapps.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20240185, Draft, NRCS, GA, Watershed Plan and Environmental 
Impact Statement for the Lower Little Tallapoosa River Watershed 
Structure No. 25A, Comment Period Ends: 12/02/2024, Contact: Sharon 
Swagger 706-546-2203.
EIS No. 20240186, Final, DOE, NAT, Department of Energy Activities in 
Support of Commercial Production of High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium 
(HALEU), Review Period Ends: 11/18/2024, Contact: James Lovejoy 208-
526-6805.
EIS No. 20240187, Final, USFS, AZ, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 
Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 11/18/
2024, Contact: Scott Grunder 928-333-6302.
EIS No. 20240188, Final, RUS, SC, McClellanville 115 kV Transmission 
Line Project, Review Period Ends: 12/02/2024, Contact: Suzanne Kopich 
202-961-8514.

    Dated: October 11, 2024.
Timothy Witman,
Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal 
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2024-24112 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
* 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

October 17, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-11052

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAVIER HUERTA, also known as Big Boy,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:03-CR-369-4

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

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Javier Huerta appeals his guilty-plea conviction for

conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute

100 kilograms or more of marijuana. He argues that the written

judgment of conviction does not accurately reflect the offense to

which he pleaded guilty.

As the Government has explicitly declined to invoke the

appeal waiver regarding the issue raised by Huerta, the appeal

waiver is not binding on this appeal. See United States v.

Story, 439 F.3d 226, 231 (5th Cir. 2006). 
No. 05-11052

-2-

As the Government concedes, the written judgment describes

the nature of Huerta’s offense as conspiracy to distribute and

possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of

cocaine and 100 kilograms or more of marijuana while the record

shows that Huerta pleaded guilty only to conspiracy to distribute

and possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of

marijuana. This error is a clerical error subject to correction

pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 36. See United States v. Sapp, 439

F.2d 817, 821 (5th Cir. 1971). Accordingly, we affirm Huerta’s

conviction and sentence and remand this case to the district

court for correction of the clerical error in the judgment

pursuant to Rule 36.

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO GRANT RELIEF REQUESTED GRANTED; REMANDED

FOR CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERROR IN JUDGMENT.
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2933

To amend provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 relating to remedial

action of active uranium and thorium processing sites.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 26, 2000

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

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 relating to remedial action of active uranium and thorium

processing sites.

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

3 SECTION 1. REMEDIAL ACTION AT ACTIVE URANIUM AND

4 THORIUM PROCESSING SITES.

5 Section 1001(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992

6 (42 U.S.C. 2296a(b)) is amended—

7 (1) in paragraph (1)(B)—

8 (A) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘2002’’ and

9 inserting ‘‘2007’’; and
2

•S 2933 IS

1 (B) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘placed in es2 crow not later than December 31, 2002,’’ and

3 inserting ‘‘incurred by a licensee after Decem4 ber 31, 2007,’’; and

5 (2) in paragraph (2)(E)(i), by striking ‘‘July

6 31, 2005’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2008’’.

Æ
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 83852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24145]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID: DoD-2024-OS-0070]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness (OUSD (P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: 30-Day information collection notice.

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

SUMMARY: The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by November 
18, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed 
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of 
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular 
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Defense Travel System; OMB 
Control Number 0704-0577.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 1,500.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 1,500.
    Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 250 hours.
    Needs and uses: The Defense Travel System is the enterprise 
standard for requesting, authorizing, reserving, and requesting payment 
for travel within the Department of Defense. Information is collected 
for the purpose of official travel. The information is used to satisfy 
reporting requirements and detect fraud and abuse.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.
    DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. Reginald Lucas.

    Dated: October 15, 2024.
Aaron T. Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2024-24145 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P
```
#### Thomas Mulverhill v. T. O. Thompson, Appellant.

Waters: diversion: damages. The damage to a farm occasioned "by the diversion of water from its natural course is measured by the difference in the fair market value of the farm immediately before and after the injury complained of. Under the evidence the verdict is held excessive.

*Appeal from Story District Court.*— Hon. J. H. Richards, Judge.

Monday, January 18, 1904.

Action to recover damages occasioned by the diversion of water from its natural course on the plaintiff’s l^and. The issues are more fully stated in the ■ opinion of the court on the former, appeal, found in 114 Iowa, 734. Judgment was rendered against defendant, and he ap*peals.*

-Affirmed.

*D. J. Vinji*for appellant.

*H. M. Funston*and *J. F.. Martin*for appellee.

*230PER CuRiAM

'On the former appeal the question as to whether the defendant, in digging and extending the ditch in the road, causing the damages, acted under the directions of the road supervisor, was held to have been for the jury, and an examination of this record has confirmed the correctness of that conclusion. .The finding for the plaintiff is supported by the evidence. The instructions are not vulnerable to the criticisms made. The verdict was for $800. The measure of damages, according to the instructions, was the difference between the fair-market value of plaintiff’s farm of one hundred and thirty-three acres, immediately before, and such value immediately after, the wrongful excavation of the ditch. But one witness gave an estimate of values, and he declared its value before to be $57.50 to $60 per acre, and after to be $55 per acre. No testimony put the acreage overflowed in times of high water at more than fifteen or twenty acres and some injury to three acres of pasture. Witnesses estimated the difference in the rental value of the farm at from fifty to seventy-five cents per acre, but this evidence, if admissible at all as baaring on the measure of damages stated, was merely corroborative of the estimate of values given. The amount allowed was more than the evidence, viewed in the most favorable light, justified; and, unless the plaintiff shall file with the clerk of this court a remittitur in the sum of $850 of the amount of the verdict and judgment within flirty days of the filing of this opinion, the judgment will be reversed. If such remittitur is so filed, the judgment will stand affirmed.

Weaver, J., took no part.