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

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 226 (Friday, November 22, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 92681-92682]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27424]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-12404-01-OA]

Animal Agriculture and Water Quality Subcommittee (AAWQ), 
Subcommittee of the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee 
(FRRCC); Notice of Public Meeting Animal Agriculture and Water Quality 
Subcommittee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), notice 
is hereby given that the next meeting of the Animal Agriculture and 
Water Quality Subcommittee, a subcommittee of the Farm, Ranch, and 
Rural Communities Advisory Committee (FRRCC) will be held virtually on 
December 6, 2024. The goal of the AAWQ subcommittee is to provide 
recommendations that will inform the Agency's decisions regarding how 
to improve the implementation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Concentrated Animal 
Feeding Operation (CAFO) permitting program.

DATES: The public meeting of the AAWQ will be held virtually only on 
Friday, December 6, 2024, from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 
(EST).

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place virtually only. To register to 
attend virtually and receive information on how to listen to the 
meeting and to provide comments, please visit: www.epa.gov/faca/frrcc-
0. Virtual attendance will be via Zoom. The link to register for the 
meeting can be found on the FRRCC web page, www.epa.gov/faca/frrcc-0. 
To provide public comments, attendees must submit request by Tuesday, 
November 26, 2024, at 11:59 p.m. (EST).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Venus Welch-White, Designated 
Federal Officer (DFO), at [email protected] or telephone. (202) 564-0595. 
General information regarding the FRRCC and AAWQ can be found on the 
EPA website at: www.epa.gov/faca/frrcc.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meetings of the AAWQ are open to the public. 
An agenda will be posted on AAWQ's website at https://www.epa.gov/faca/frrcc-0.
    Access and Accommodations: Requests for accessibility and/or 
accommodations for individuals with disabilities should be directed to 
[email protected] or at the phone number

[[Page 92682]]

(202) 564-0595. To ensure adequate time for processing, please make 
requests for accommodations at least 10 business days prior to the 
meeting. The deadline to make these request is Tuesday, November 26, 
2024, at 11:59 p.m. (EST).

    Dated: November 18, 2024.
Venus Welch-White,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Office 
of the Administrator, U.S. EPA.
[FR Doc. 2024-27424 Filed 11-21-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 6, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Page S4]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER

  The VICE PRESIDENT. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________
```
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF
SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Mymetics Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2003 (the
"Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained
in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: December 12, 2003        /s/ Christian Rochet
                                -----------------------------------------------
                                President and Chief Executive Officer

Dated: December 12, 2003        /s/ Ernst Lubke
                                -----------------------------------------------
                                Principal financial and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter
63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as a separate
disclosure document.
Affirmed and Majority and Concurring Opinion s filed October 4 , 2022.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00576

- CR

EX PARTE MEDGER CHAU NCEY DUCKENS , Appellant

On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1688385

C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N

I respectfully concur. The majority opinion discusses whether the State ’ s

cond uct in this case is substantially unconstitutional , thus implying that there is a

permissible category of unconstitutional restrictions because t hey do not constitute

a “substantial” violation. Because I believe that a ll unconstitutional restrictions

should have a remedy but that the State ’ s actions are not unconstitutional in this

case , I concur.

/s/ Me a gan Hassan

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Zimmerer, and Hassan (Jewell, J., majority).

Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2( b).
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 221 (Friday, November 15, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 90323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-26581]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

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: November 15, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 7, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 650 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-308, K2025-306.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-26581 Filed 11-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
#### Emeline T. McNatt, plaintiff in error, *vs.*William H. Jones, defendant in error.

Whatever may have been the rule previous to the act of congress requiring all drop letters to bear a postage stamp, since the passage of said act, notice to an indorser of a notarial protest, deposited in the postoffice of the city where the indorser resides, is sufficient notice under section 2781 of the Code.

Promissory Notes. Indorser. Protest. Before Judge Gould. City Court of Augusta. February Term, 1874.

Emeline T. McNatt brought complaint against William C. Jones, as maker, and William H. Jones, as indorser, on a note for $300 00, dated March 5th, 1873, payable ten days after the date thereof at the National Bank of Augusta. The in*474dorser was served by leaving a copy at his residence. When the case was called for trial, no plea had been filed. The plaintiff moved for a judgment, presenting to the court the note sued on, and the certificate of the notary as to noting and protesting. It appeared from this certificate that notice of the protest, etc., had been given to the indorser, by mail, under cover addressed to William H. Jones, Esq., Augusta, Georgia. The court, refused to allow judgment against the indorser, holding service of such notice by mail insufficient. To this ruling plaintiff excepted.

M. P. Carroll; Frank PI. Miller, for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant.

Trippe, Judge.

The court held that as the indorser was a resident of the city of Augusta, notice of the protest served on him by placing it in the post office in the city was not sufficient. It is true there is authority that such notice is not proper. But we think that since the adoption of the Code, section 2781, whatever the rule might have been before the passage of the act of congress requiring a postage stamp on all “drop letters,” such service is now sufficient. Such a letter under the present law, has the imprimature of the government upon it. All the laws as to its safe keeping and delivery apply to it as well as to those which are to be dispatched to other post offices. The party to whom it is directed has the same guaranty that he will receive it, and the same sanctions of law protecting his rights as he has to any other matter passing through the post from any other point.

We are of opinion that under section 2781 of the Code the service of notice of protest in this case was sufficient.

Judgment reversed.
1

From: "Palazzolo, Michael A." <Michael.Palazzolo@alcoa.com>

To: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 01/05/2011 03:06 PM

Subject: RE: Lake Charles Carbon Plant - Paste Plant Mixer Type

Rochelle,

Lake Charles’ paste plant has a continuous mixer.

Mike

From: Boyd.Rochelle@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Boyd.Rochelle@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 2:53 PM

To: Palazzolo, Michael A.

Subject: RE: Lake Charles Carbon Plant - Paste Plant Mixer Type

Ok Thanks.

Rochelle Boyd, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243-02

Ph: (919) 541-1390 Fax: (919) 541-3207

Email: boyd.rochelle@epa.gov

From: "Palazzolo, Michael A." <Michael.Palazzolo@alcoa.com>

To: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 01/05/2011 02:49 PM

Subject: RE: Lake Charles Carbon Plant - Paste Plant Mixer Type

Rochelle,

I asked that question but have no reply yet. I will check in again.

Mike

From: Boyd.Rochelle@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Boyd.Rochelle@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 2:21 PM

To: Palazzolo, Michael A.

Subject: Fw: Lake Charles Carbon Plant - Paste Plant Mixer Type

Mike, do you know if that process is batch or continuous?
2

Rochelle Boyd, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243-02

Ph: (919) 541-1390 Fax: (919) 541-3207

Email: boyd.rochelle@epa.gov

----- Forwarded by Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US on 01/05/2011 02:20 PM -----

From: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Michael.Palazzolo@alcoa.com

Date: 12/28/2010 09:55 AM

Subject: Lake Charles Carbon Plant - Paste Plant Mixer Type

In our calculations for allowable paste plant emissions we were going to use the limit for batch mixers but 

I figured I would just check to see if you have a continuous or batch paste plant production process so 

that we can have an accurate allowable calculation for Lake Charles?

Rochelle Boyd, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243-02

Ph: (919) 541-1390 Fax: (919) 541-3207

Email: boyd.rochelle@epa.gov
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0129 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. LEVI JOSEPH LAVERGNE,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including November 6 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 28 2023

09/28/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0129
#### Nand Persaud et al., Respondents, v Cincinnati Incorporated, Appellant, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Title.)

[631 NYS2d 437]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Cincinnati Incorporated appeals from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated March 7, 1994, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it.

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

*701The plaintiff Nand Persaud (hereinafter Nand), was employed by the third-party defendant Milgo Industries (hereinafter Milgo) as a press brake operator. Pursuant to Milgo’s normal procedure for operating the press brake to hem or bend a piece of steel, Nand held a metal piece part with his hand to ensure that it stayed in the press brake as the die came down to bend the metal. At that point, the metal piece part slipped out from the press brake and cut his hand. In a bifurcated trial, *inter alia,*on the issue of strict products liability, the jury found that the defendant Cincinnati Incorporated, the manufacturer of the press brake, was liable for defective design by failing to incorporate magnets and clamps in the press brake to eliminate the need for hand-holding the metal piece parts during its operation.

The court did not err when it denied the motion of Cincinnati Incorporated to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence because it cannot be said that the jury could not have reached its verdict based upon any fair interpretation of the evidence *(see, Voss v Black & Decker Mfg. Co.,*59 NY2d 102, 107-111; *see also, Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129, 134-137; *Jiminez v Dreis & Krump Mfg. Co.,*736 F2d 51, 54).

Cincinnati Incorporated’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Manga no, P. J., Joy, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 4 (Friday, January 9, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H93]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

                         United States of America
American eagle (seal)

       PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 111th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

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

This symbol represents the time of day 
during the House proceedings, e.g.,1407 is 2:07 p.m.

Matter set in this typeface Indicates words inserted or appended,
 rather than spoken, by a Member  of the House on the floor.

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

(seal) recycle
Printed on recycled paper.

Vol. 155          WASHINGTON, FRIDAY, JANUARY 9, 2009             No. 4
```
<!--/* //NOSONAR */-->
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	Readout of National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s Call with the National Security Advisors of the Republic of Korea and Japan Following the DPRK’s ICBM Test
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4870" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/Joint/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="aprint news">
    <div class="header">
        <img height="100" class="print-logo" alt="Site Logo" src="/Portals/55/INDOPACOM2018_100x100.png?ver=J6xEsvouw9aaqHcHjhoIIQ%3d%3d" />

        <h1 class="title">Readout of National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s Call with the National Security Advisors of the Republic of Korea and Japan Following the DPRK’s ICBM Test</h1>
    </div>
    

    <div> <span class="date">/ Published Dec. 19, 2023</span></div>
    <span class="dateline-text"></span>
    <p><span style="font-size:x-small;"><span style="font-family:arial;">National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan spoke this evening with National Security Office Director Cho Taeyong of the Republic of Korea (ROK) and National Security Secretariat Secretary General Akiba Takeo of Japan following the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (DPRK) Intercontinental ballistic missile test. The national security advisors condemned the test, which is a flagrant violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions. Mr. Sullivan reaffirmed the United States’ unwavering commitment to the defense of Japan and the ROK, and the national security advisors agreed that their engagement was an important exercise of the Commitment to Consult made at the historic Camp David Trilateral Summit in August. They noted that their December 9 National Security Advisors trilateral meeting in Seoul — the fourth such meeting of the Biden Administration — had allowed them to strengthen their coordination and resolve against continued DPRK provocations. They also underscored the importance of their work to share missile warning data and to coordinate responses to growing cooperation between Russia and the DPRK. </span></span></p>
<br />
</div>
    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANNA M. BUENROSTRO,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 08-56620

D.C. No. 2:06-cv-06814-SJO-SH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2010** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. 

Anna M. Buenrostro appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in favor of her employer in her action alleging discrimination and

harassment in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, Vasquez v.

FILED

JAN 07 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-56620

Cnty. of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 2003), and for abuse of

discretion its denial of a request to reopen discovery, Panatronic USA v. AT&T

Corp., 287 F.3d 840, 846 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the discrimination

claim because Buenrostro failed to show that she was treated less favorably than

similarly-situated employees outside her protected class or that her employer’s

proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, such as denying her a

promotion, were pretextual. See Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1124 (9th Cir.

2003). Similarly, the district court properly granted summary judgment on the

harassment claim because Buenrostro failed to show that she was subjected to

conduct severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment. See

Vasquez, 349 F.3d at 642-44.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Buenrostro’s second

request for additional discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f)

because she failed to show that she diligently pursued her previous discovery

opportunities and how allowing additional discovery would have precluded

summary judgment. See Panatronic USA, 287 F.3d at 846. 
3 08-56620

We do not consider Buenrostro’s contentions raised for the first time on

appeal. See Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 546 F.3d

1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 2008).

Buenrostro’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
NUMBER 13-16-00664-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE JAMES R. HARRIS, IN HIS CAPACITY 

AS PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SOUTH BAY 

CORPORATION AND LAMB OIL & GAS, INC., SOUTH BAY 

CORPORATION, AND LAMB OIL & GAS, INC.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes

Per Curiam Order

Relators, James R. Harris, in his capacity as President and Chairman of the Board 

of South Bay Corporation and Lamb Oil & Gas, Inc., South Bay Corporation, and Lamb 

Oil & Gas, Inc., filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on December 6, 

2016. Through this original proceeding, relators seek to compel the trial court to issue 

findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding its disqualification order of October 25, 

2016. The Court requests that the real parties in interest, Jeffery Scott Harris, Suzette 
2

Harris, William Harris, Christiana Harris, Frances Harris, and Andrew Harris, or any others 

whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, file a response to the 

petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from the date of this 

order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

8th day of December, 2016.
Exhibit 32.2





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 on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 of Dutch Gold Resources, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tom Leahey, Chief Financial 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) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2. The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





Date:  May 26, 2011





/s/ Tom Leahey


Tom Leahey, Chief Financial Officer


(principal executive officer)