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.                  

###### Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

# DATES:

November 14, 2024 at 10 a.m.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Telephonic. Dial-in (listen only) information: Number: 1-202-599-1426, Code: 504 721 370#; or via web:                         *https://www.frtib.gov/​*.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## ETAC Meeting Agenda

1. Approval of the minutes of the May 21, 2024, Joint Board/ETAC Meeting

2. Investment Program Review

3. 2024 FISMA Report

4. 2024 Participant Satisfaction Survey Results

5. 2024 Full Withdrawal Participant Exit Survey

6. Office of Participant Experience Update

7. Social Science Program Update

8. Legislative Update

9. New Business

*Written Statements:*                     Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, interested parties may submit written statements in response to the stated agenda of the meeting, or to the Employee Thrift Advisory Council (ETAC), in general. Individuals may submit their comments to                     *ETACComments@frtib.gov.*                     Written comments or statements received less than 5 days before ETAC's meeting may not be provided to the Committee until its next meeting.                

*Authority:*5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(1).                

Dated: October 30, 2024.

Dharmesh Vashee,

General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.

[FR Doc. 2024-25566 Filed 11-1-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
##  	  W. Scott Railton New Commissioner of Federal Job Safety Court
#### STATE v. SIMON JORDAN.

Whenever there is a criminal1 intent to- commit a felony, and some *aei*is (lone-amounting to an attempt to accomplish the purpose without doing it, the perpetrator is indictable as for a misdemeanor.

INDICTMENT for *an attempt*io- *commit burglary,*tried before Moore, J., at December (Special) Term, 1875, of Halifax Superior Court.'

The bill of indictment charges that the defendant “ did attempt to commit an offence prohibited by law, to wit: did feloniously, burglariously, maliciously and secretly attempt to break and enter the dwelling house of one Spier Whitaker, there situate, in the night time of the day aforesaid,, by being then and there in the porch of said dwelling house, and by then and there endeavoring feloniously, burgla-riously, maliciously and secretly, to break open the door and' window of said dwelling house with the intent, &e.”

' Upon motion of the prisoner’s counsel, his Honor quashed the bill and the State appealed.

*Attorney G&neral Hargrove,*with whom was *Bledsoe,*for the State,

cited : Wharton’s Crim. Law, sec. 2,696 ; *Réx*v. *Kin¡~ nersley,*1 Str. 193; *The King-v. Higgins,*2 East’s R. 4..

No counsel for the defendant in this .Court.

*28Reads, J.

Whenever there is a criminal intent to commit a felony — as in this case burglary — and some *act*is done amounting to an attempt to accomplish the purpose without doing it, the perpetrator is indictable as for a misdemeanor. Wharton’s Criminal Law, sec. 2,696. *The King*v. Higgins, 2 East. R. 4, is a very full and satisfactory authority.

It was error to quash the indictment. This will be certified.

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.
#### WILLIAM A. ERWIN v. JOHN M. GREENLEE.

Where the defendant in an execution, fraudulently induces the sheriff to sell unsound property of his, and at the sale fraudulently represents it to be sound, an action for a ’deceit lies against him by the purchaser.

This was an action for a deceit in the sale of a negro, tried before his honour Judge Mab.tin, at Burke, on the last Circuit.

The sheriff of Burke had levied sundry executions against the defendant, on several negroes, and taken bond for their forthcoming on the day of sale. The negroes levied upon, were not produced at the sale, but the defendant substituted another, which the sheriff accepted, and sold to the plaintiff. At *the sale, the*defendant stood by, and publicly recommended the negro as an intelligent boy. It was proved that the boy was an idiot, and that the defendant knew it. It was objected for the defendant, that the plaintiff could not recover, because he who purchases at a sheriff’s sale, purchases at his own risk, and it was his folly to listen to the recommendation of the defendant; that there could be no implied warranty as to title, the sheriff being between the plaintiff and defendant. His honour charged the jury, that if a defendant in an execution is merely passive while a sheriff levies upon and sells his property under process, he is not liable in an action of deceit, though the property be defective and he knew it, and failed to disclose it at the sale. But that, if, with a fraudulent intent, he substituted, or caused the officer to take, unsound in the place of sound property; and if in pursuance of such fraudulent intent, he stood by at the sale and made false representations about the soundness of the property, whereby a purchaser was defrauded, such purchaser could recover in an action of deceit. The rule being, that where an intent to commit a fraud, is accompanied by an overt act, whereby the fraud is complete, the fraudulent actor is liable in an action of deceit, although the deception is effected by the unwilling instrumentality of another.

*40The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff and the defendant appealed.

No counsel appeared for either party.

Daniel, Judge.'

— We have attentively examined this case; and are of opinion that the law was correctly laid down by the Judge in his charge, and for the reasons there given, the judgment must be affirmed.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.
PAD District / Refinery Location

Total Atmospheric

Distillation

Capacity (bbl/cd)

Crude Oil Total Downstream

Charge Capacity

(bbl/sd)

Date 

Operable

Date of Last

Operation

Date

Shutdown

Table 13. Shutdown and Reactivated Refineries During 2006

a b

OTHER

c PAD District III 0 34,982

Excel Paralubes Westlake, LA 0 34,982 09/96

SHUTDOWN

PAD District III 5,800 0

Hunt Southland Refining Co Lumberton, MS 5,800 0 03/66 03/05 12/06

Total U.S. Shutdowns 5,800 0

a

b

c bbl/cd=Barrels per calendar day.

bbl/sd=Barrels per stream day.

Excel Paralubes is a separate operation which manufactures lube oils and their precursors. Their downstream capacity was formerly reported as part of 

ConocoPhillips Westlake refinery's capacity. Excel Paralubes is a joint venture between ConocoPhillips and Flint Hills Resources each owning a 50 percent 

interest.

Sources: Energy Information Administration (EIA) Form EIA-810, "Monthly Refinery Report" and Form EIA-820, "Annual Refinery Report."

50 Energy Information Administration, Refinery Capacity 2007
EXHIBIT 99.5



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                        CONTACT  Andrea J. Keller
May 15, 1998                                          Frederick Brewing Co.
                                                      301-694-7899 x120


                        MARYLAND BEER ON A BOAT TO CHINA
               Frederick Brewing Co. Begins Distribution in China


FREDERICK, MD -- Frederick Brewing Co. (NASDAQ: BLUE) announced today that it
has agreed to begin distributing three of its best-selling beers in China: Wild
Goose(TM) IPA, Blue Ridge(R) Golden Ale and Brimstone(TM) Honey Red(TM). In
agreement with Jin Ming International Trade Co. Ltd., 2,800 cases of the beer
are currently en route to Zhejiang, China.

"As the world's second largest beer market, China represents a vast, virtually
untapped market for our products," said Frederick Brewing Co. President and COO
Marjorie McGinnis. "We're very pleased to have taken this first step."

Founded in 1992, Frederick Brewing Co. completed a successful initial public
offering (IPO) in 1996. In March 1997, the company moved from a converted
warehouse to a purpose-built, 57,000 square foot facility. In December 1997,
Frederick Brewing Co. merged with two other Maryland microbreweries, Wild Goose
Brewery, Inc. of Cambridge, MD and Brimstone Brewing Company of Baltimore, MD.,
creating the largest craft brewery in the Mid-Atlantic region. Frederick Brewing
Co.'s beers are sold in 31 states and the District of Columbia.

Free public tours and tastings are held at Frederick Brewing Co.'s brewery every
Saturday and Sunday at 1:30 p.m. Reservations are not required. Directions are
available by calling the brewery at 888-258-7434, visiting the Frederick Brewing
Co. website at http://www.fredbrew.com or referring to the map on the bottom of
a six-pack. Downloadable label artwork and brewery photographs are available at
http://www.fredbrew.com/prphotos.

                                      # # #
EXHIBIT
32





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Renhuang Pharmaceutical, Inc. (the
“Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended January 31, 2010, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Li
Shaoming, chief executive officer and president of the Registrant, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
            The
      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 results of operations of the
      Registrant.





Dated:  March
      16, 2010
                /s/
      Li ShaomingLi
      ShaomingChief
      Executive Officer and
President





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Renhuang Pharmaceutical, Inc. (the
“Registrant”) on Form 10-Qfor the Quarter ended
January 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yan Yi Chen, chief financial officer of the
Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
knowledge:





(1)
            The
      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 results of operations of the
      Registrant.





Dated:  March
      16, 2010
                /s/
      Yan Yi ChenYan
      Yi ChenChief
      Financial Officer
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Anza Capital, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Vincent Rinehart, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)  Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated: December 12, 2003
/s/ Vincent RinehartBy: Vincent RinehartIts: Chief Financial Officer 
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Anza Capital, Inc. and will be retained by Anza Capital, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mitcham Industries, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Billy
F. Mitcham, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    
    the 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 results of
operations of the Company. /s/ Billy F. Mitcham, Jr.  
 20
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial 
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for Diversified Futures Trust I
                    and is qualified in its entirety by reference
                    to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>          
<CIK>               0000926805
<NAME>              Diversified Futures Trust I
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1997

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1997

<PERIOD-END>                    Sep-30-1997

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-Mos

<CASH>                          63,189,766

<SECURITIES>                    3,139,377

<RECEIVABLES>                   33,115

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                66,362,258

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  66,362,258

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,894,437

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      64,467,821

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    66,362,258

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                6,672,716

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                6,162,640

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    510,076

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   1.31

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40183 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LUIS MANUEL SAYAS-MONTOYA, Defendant-Appellant. * * * * * Consolidated with 04-40213 * * * * * UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LUIS MANUEL SAYAS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:03-CR-815-1

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *No. 04-40183 c/w No. 04-40213 -2- Luis Manuel Sayas-Montoya appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation as well as from the revocation of supervised release relating to a prior conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. He argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of the Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and that his sentence is improper under Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). These arguments are, as he concedes, foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998); United States v. Pineiro , 377 F.3d 464, 465- 66 (5th Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004) (No. 04-5263) ; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2011 - 1285 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2010 - SW - 073 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
#### STATE v. GEORGE PIPER.

*Indictment for Removing Fence*— Special *Verdict.*

1. A landlord lias no right to enter upon land leased to his tenant and remoro a fence therefrom against’the consent of the tenant.

2. The court below erred in not holding the defendant to be guilty upon the facts found in the special verdict.

*(State*v. *Graham,*8 .Jones, 397; *State*v. *Sovis,*7C> N. C., 117, cited and approved).

INDICTMENT tried at Spring Term, 1883, of Orange Superior Court, before *Gilmer, J. t*

*552The defendant is indicted under The Code, §1062, for unlawfully and wilfully removing a fence surrounding a cultivated field, the property of Mary S. Nichols.

On the trial, the jury found a special verdict, in substance as follows:

The defendant .and one Robert A. Nichols entered into an agreement by which Nichols leased a tract of land, in consideration, among other things, that he (Nichols) was to put a fence around the same, which he did. Subsequently Nichols died, and his widow,vthe said Mary, has since continued, under the lease, to live on and cultivate the land enclosed by the said fence, which constituted a division fence between Nichols and one Whitaker, another tenant of the defendant, and was built according to contract with the defendant. Afterwards, and during the continuance of the lease, the defendant, upon notice to the prosecutrix, moved the fence and deposited the rails upon his own premises, the prosecutrix forbidding the same. Thereupon the court adjudged the defendant was not guilty, and the state solicitor appealed.

*Attorney-General*and *A. W. Graham,,*for the State.

No'counsel for the defendant.

MeeeimoN, J.

It appears that the prosecutrix was in the actual possession of and cultivated the field up to the fence, embracing that part removed by the defendant, and that one Whitaker was in possession of the field and cultivated the same on the opposite side of the fence, as lessee of the defendant. The fact that the fence was on the land let to Whitaker cannot alter the case, because it was built by Nichols in his life-time under his lease; he had actual possession of the land up to it, until his death, and his widow, the prosecutrix, had actual possession thereof continuously next after his death, until and at the time the fence was removed. So that, on one side of the fence the field was in the lawful possession of the prosecutrix, and on the *553other it was in the lawful possession of Whitaker. The defendant, for the purpose of the statute, for the time was not the owner of the fields and the fence; he had no right to go upon the field on either side of the fence; he committed a trespass when he did so, and especially when he removed the fence; he had no right to remove it; he unlawfully removed it, and the *animus*sufficiently appears. So he was guilty, and the court ought to have so held upon the special verdict. *State*v. *Graham,*8 Jones, 397; *State*v. *Hovis,*76 N. C., 117.

There is error. Judgment reversed, with instructions to enter a verdict of guilty upon the special verdict, and proceed to judgment according to law. Let this be certified.

'Error. Reversed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2531

CURTIS L. WRENN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

HARVEY S. WASSERMAN,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge;

Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-88-1413-B)

Submitted: March 12, 1996 Decided: March 28, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis L. Wrenn, Appellant Pro Se. Harvey Saul Wasserman, COHEN,

GREENE & WASSERMAN, Edgewater, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order, following

trial, entering judgment for Defendant upon the finding that Appellant had not established either legal malpractice or defamation. We

have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Wrenn v. Wasserman, No. CA-88-1413-B (D. Md. July

14, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED