alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 7821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02843]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XB800]


North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of web conference.

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

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Pacific 
Northwest Crab Industry Advisory Committee (PNCIAC) will meet March 2, 
2022.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 2, 2022, from 9 
a.m. to 10:30 a.m., Alaska Time.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be a web conference. Join online through 
the link at https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2813.
    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1007 W 
3rd Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone: (907) 271-2809. 
Instructions for attending the meeting via video conference are given 
under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Marrinan, Council staff; phone; 
(907) 271-2809; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d7a4b6a5b6bff9bab6a5a5beb9b6b997b9b8b6b6f9b0b8a1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="384b594a59501655594a4a515659567856575959165f574e">[email protected]</span></a>. For technical support 
please contact our admin Council staff, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c3adb3a5aea0eda2a7aeaaad83adaca2a2eda4acb5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fe908e98939dd09f9a939790be90919f9fd0999188">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda

Wednesday, March 2, 2022

    The Committee will discuss: (a) March 2022 Board of Fisheries 
proposals; (b) shifting crab stocks and boundary issues; (c) opilio 
rebuilding; (d) Bristol Bay Red King Crab discussion papers; (e) bairdi 
industry preferred size; (f) season start date; (g) elections due in 
December 2022; and (h) other business. The agenda is subject to change, 
and the latest version will be posted https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2813 prior to the meeting, along with meeting 
materials.

Connection Information

    You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or 
smart phone; or by phone only. Connection information will be posted 
online at: https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2813.

Public Comment

    Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted 
electronically to https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2813.
    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: February 7, 2022.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-02843 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Shemira HARGROVE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3530

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6036 

To require GAO to conduct annual assessments to determine the extent 

to which TSA’s passenger security screening practices comply with TSA 

non-discrimination policies to identify any needed actions to improve 

compliance, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 24, 2023 

Mr. THANEDAR introduced the following bill 

OCTOBER 25, 2023 

Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To require GAO to conduct annual assessments to determine 

the extent to which TSA’s passenger security screening 

practices comply with TSA non-discrimination policies 

to identify any needed actions to improve compliance, 

and for other purposes. 

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


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6036 IH

1 SECTION 1. GAO ASSESSMENTS OF TSA COMPLIANCE WITH 

2 NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICIES DURING 

3 PASSENGER SECURITY SCREENINGS. 

4 Not later than 90 days after the date of the enact5 ment of this Act and annually thereafter, the Comptroller 

6 General of the United States shall submit to the Com7 mittee on Homeland Security of the House of Representa8 tives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

9 Transportation an assessment of the extent to which pas10 senger security screening practices of the Transportation 

11 Security Administration comply with non-discrimination 

12 policies of the Administration in order to identify any 

13 needed actions to improve such compliance. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1

                                  Exhibit 15






Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC  20549


Dear Sirs:


We are aware that Acme Metals Incorporated has included our report dated May 7,
1998 (issued pursuant to the provisions of Statement on Auditing Standards No.
71) in the Prospectuses constituting part of its Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 33-17235, 33-19437 and 33-30841) and in its Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 33-38747 and 33-59627). We are also aware of our responsibilities
under the Securities Act of 1933.


Very truly yours,



/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP
------------------------
PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

Chicago, Illinois
May 12, 1998


                                       28
John E. CROSBY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3793

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2018

John E. Crosby, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Wetherell, Ray, and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I,Michael J. Lyftogt, Vice President, Finance, Chief Accounting Officer andInterim Chief Financial Officer of Christopher & Banks Corporation(the “Company”) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.  The quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q****for the period ended August 28, 2010 as filed with theUnited States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  October 7, 2010 |     |                                                                                                         |
|-----------------------------|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |     |                                                                                                         |
|                        | By:      | /s/  Michael J. Lyftogt                                                                                      |
|                        | * * | Michael  J. Lyftogt*Vice President, Finance,**Chief Accounting Officer and**Interim Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 15, 2024

NO. 03

- 24

- 00098

- CR

Jessie Rodriguez , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 35TH DISTRICT COURT OF MILLS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND KELLY

MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the tr i a l court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court ho lds that there was no error in the court’s

judgment requiring reversal

. However, there was error in the judgment that requires correction.

Therefore, the Court modifies the trial court’s judgment to reflect that the “Statute for Offense”

is “22.0 2 1 & 15.01, Penal Code .” The judgment, as modified , is affirmed

. Because appellant is

indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fabian David MONGE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10227

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 14, 2017

Liza M. Granoff, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Erica McCallum, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Robert Daily Miskell, Assistant' U.S. Attorney, USTU—Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

Francisco Leon, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Francisco Leon, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Fabian David Monge appeals from the district court’s order granting in part Monge’s motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court concluded that Monge was eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 and reduced his sentence from 151 months to 144 months. Monge contends that the district court failed to address his arguments in favor of a greater reduction. The record reflects that the district court considered Monge’s arguments and adequately explained its decision. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Monge further contends that, in light of his post-sentencing conduct, the district court abused its discretion by failing to reduce his sentence to the low end of the new sentencing range. The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that no further reduction was warranted in light of Monge’s managerial role as a “kingpin” in the marijuana distribution enterprise, the large quantities of drugs he supplied over a long period of time, and his post-sentencing conduct. *See*U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B); *United States v. Dunn,*728 F.3d 1151, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 2013).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth' Circuit Rule 36-3.
Baltazar JIMENEZ-HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3812

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
William NIXON v. MOVIE GALLERY, INC., et al.

1150390

Supreme Court of Alabama.

January 13, 2017

Affirmed.
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.
 Department of Justice
 On December 29, 2021, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, in the lawsuit entitled 
                    *United States*
                     v. 
                    *New-Indy Catawba LLC,*
                     Civil Action No. 0:21-cv-02053-SAL. The United States filed this lawsuit under the Clean Air Act. The United States' complaint seeks injunctive relief related to emissions of Hydrogen Sulfide from defendant's paper mill in Catawba, South Carolina. The consent decree requires the defendant to perform injunctive relief to abate hydrogen sulfide emissions, and to pay a $1.1 million civil penalty. On January 10, 2022, the Department of Justice published notice of the proposed Consent Decree. 87 FR 1,186. The notice started a 30-day period for the submission of comments on the proposed consent decree. The Department of Justice has received requests for an extension of the comment period. In consideration of the requests, notice is hereby given that the Department of Justice has extended the comment period on the proposed consent decree by an additional 30 days, up to and including March 11, 2022. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to 
                    *United States*
                     v. 
                    *New-Indy Catawba LLC,*
                     D.J. Ref. No. 90-5-2-1-12471. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail: *To submit comments:*
*Send them to:*By email
*pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov.*By mail
Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.
 During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined at and downloaded from this Justice Department website: 
                    *https://www.justice.gov/​enrd/​consent-decrees.*
                     We will provide a paper copy of the Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. Please enclose a check or money order for $8.75 (25 cents per page 
                    ( print page 7209)
                    reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. Lori Jonas, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.


[FR Doc. 2022-02567 Filed 2-7-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
To : mike.patrick@agfa.com, Cc: Bcc: Subject: From: Paul Campanella/DC/USEPA/US - Wednesday 05/02/2012 03:03 PM Dear Mr. Patrick, This email is in response to the letter you submitted on April 13, 2011 to the TSCA Document Control Office requesting an exemption for any required testing of sodium glucoheptonate, CASRN 31138-65-5. As you note in your letter, you have corrected errors in the 2006 IUR submission to indicate the correct 2005 imported quantity was 2066 lbs . In addition, you indicate that Agfa Corporation has not used the chemical CASRN 31138-65-5 since June of 2009 and Agfa does not intend to use sodium glucoheptonate in the near future.
40 CFR 799.5087 states the following: (b) Am I subject to this section ? (1) If you manufacture (including import) or intend to manufacture, or process or intend to process, any chemical substance listed in Table 2 in paragraph ( j ) of this section at any time from February 7, 2011 to the end of the test data reimbursement period as defined in 40 CFR 791.3(h), you are subject to this section with respect to that chemical substance. Since import of this substance ceased before February 7, 2011 and Agfa Corporation does not intend to import this chemical for any purpose including import for sale in the U.S. Agfa is not subject to the rule. Mike, I think this answers your questions and effectively closes out this issue. Best regards, Paul

ER - AGFA - EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0531-0626[1].pd f


### Re: Exemption request Letter of April 13 mike.patrick to: Paul Campanella 04/18/2012 02:37 PM
Hello Paul, At this moment, Agfa does not import this chemical in any of their products. I will check our parent company in Europe to see if there are any future uses for this material. Kind Regards, Michael Patrick | Agfa Graphics EH&S Specialist | GS / Safety, Health & Environmental T +1 908 231-5261 | F +1 908-231-1118 Agfa Corporation, 50 Meister Ave, Somerville New Jersey 08876
----- Forwarded by Paul Campanella/DC/USEPA/US on 04/19/2012 10:11 AM -----From: pascal.meeus@agfa.com To: mike.patrick@agfa.com Cc: Paul Campanella/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, j os.vanholzaets@agfa.com Date: 04/19/2012 02:01 AM Subject: Re: Exemption request Letter of April 13

Dear all, indeed we don't use this product anymore in our applications. There are no future plans for re-use.
Pascal Kind regards, Pascal Meeus | Agfa Graphics TQM Manager Chemicals & Raw Materials | GS / Total Quality Management Consumables T +32 3444 3862 | F +32 3 400 9208 | M +32 494 5601 76

Paul J. Campanella, Ph.D. Chemical Information and Testing Branch Chemical Control Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 202-564-8091
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:See attached file
PETTI HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. U. S. BANK, N A, as Trustee, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0451

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                             118,421
<SECURITIES>                                        10,712
<RECEIVABLES>                                       72,613
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   270,578
<PP&E>                                             138,623
<DEPRECIATION>                                      37,346
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     958,754
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              289,906
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              1
<COMMON>                                             1,852
<OTHER-SE>                                         510,649
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       958,754
<SALES>                                          1,093,854
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,093,854
<CGS>                                              627,372
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,028,611
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    11,673
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1,618
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     62,339
<INCOME-TAX>                                        32,523
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 29,816
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        29,816
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.14
        


</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 602 

To amend the VA MISSION Act of 2018 to expand the Veterans Healing 

Veterans Medical Access and Scholarship Program to include more students and schools. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 27, 2023 

Mrs. GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́N introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the VA MISSION Act of 2018 to expand the 

Veterans Healing Veterans Medical Access and Scholarship Program to include more students and schools. 

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

3 SECTION 1. VETERANS HEALING VETERANS MEDICAL AC4 CESS AND SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM. 

5 Section 304 of the VA MISSION Act of 2018 (Public 

6 Law 115–182; 38 U.S.C. 7601 note) is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘18 eligible 

8 veterans’’ and inserting ‘‘28 eligible veterans’’; and 

9 (2) in subsection (g)— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 602 IH

1 (A) in the subsection heading, by striking 

2 ‘‘COVERED MEDICAL SCHOOLS’’ and inserting 

3 ‘‘DEFINITIONS’’; 

4 (B) in paragraph (1), by redesignating 

5 subparagraphs (A) through (E) as clauses (i) 

6 through (v), respectively (and by moving such 

7 clauses two ems to the right); 

8 (C) by redesignating paragraphs (1) 

9 through (5) as subparagraphs (A) through (E), 

10 respectively (and by moving such subpara11 graphs two ems to the right); 

12 (D) by striking ‘‘section, the term’’ and in13 serting the following: ‘‘section: 

14 ‘‘(1) COVERED MEDICAL SCHOOL.—The term’’; 

15 and 

16 (E) by adding at the end the following: 

17 ‘‘(F) University of Puerto Rico School of 

18 Medicine. 

19 ‘‘(G) Universidad Central del Caribe 

20 School of Medicine. 

21 ‘‘(H) San Juan Bautista School of Medi22 cine. 

23 ‘‘(I) Ponce Health Sciences University. 

24 ‘‘(J) University of Texas Health Sciences 

25 Center at San Antonio. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 602 IH

1 ‘‘(2) STATE.—The term ‘State’ has the mean2 ing given that term in section 101 of title 38, United 

3 States Code.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
09-3772-cv(L), 09-4206-cv(XAP) Lore v. City of Syracuse
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 1 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 2 At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the 1 Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on 2 the 2 ndday of March two thousand twelve. 3
Present: AMALYA L. KEARSE, 4 ROBERT D. SACK, 5 GERARD E. LYNCH, 6 Circuit Judges

. 7

_____________________________________________________ 8 THERESE LORE, 9 Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, 10 - v. - Nos. 09-3772-cv, 11 09-4206-cv 12 CITY OF SYRACUSE, 13 Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee , 14 CITY OF SYRACUSE POLICE DEPARTMENT; CHIEF OF POLICE JOHN 15 FALGE in his individual and offici al capacity; FIRST DEPUTY CHIEF 16 DANIEL BOYLE in his individual and official capacity; DEPUTY CHIEF 17 ROBERT TASSONE in his individual and official capacity; CITY OF 18 SYRACUSE MAYOR ROY BERNARDI in his individual and official 19 capacity; LIEUTENANT MIKE RATHBUN in his individual and official 20 capacity; CAPTAIN MIKE KERWIN in hi s individual and official capacity; 21 RICK GUY, CITY CORPORATION COUNSEL, in his individual and official 22 capacity; MICHAEL LEMM, in his individual and official capacity; JOHN 23 DOE, in his individual and official capacity, 24 Defendants-Cross-Appellees

. 25

_____________________________________________________ 26
In our February 2, 2012 opinion ("Opinion" ) in the above-captioned appeal, this 27 Court set forth (1) its affirmance of certain parts of the district court's judgment, (2) its vacatur of 28 certain other parts of the judgment, and (3) its conditional rulings on the remaining parts of the 29 judgment, dependent on certain elections to be made by plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant 30 ("Plaintiff") in this Court and on remand in the district court. 31Plaintiff has timely elected, in accordance with Paragraph (C) of the Conclusion 1 section of the Opinion, to withdraw so much of her appeal as challenged the summary dismissal 2 of her claims under the New York Human Rights Law with respect to her removal from the 3 position of public information officer in the defendant-cross-appellee police department. 4 Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as set forth in Paragraphs (A), (B), (D), and 5 (E) of the Conclusion section of the Opinion; and the matter is remanded to the district court for 6 further proceedings in accordance with Parts IV and V of the Opinion and Paragraphs (B), (D), and 7 (E) of the Conclusion section of the Opinion. 8 The mandate shall issue forthwith. 9

FOR THE COURT: 10 CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, Clerk of Court 11 12 13 14

- NEXTRECORD -