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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL OP-OFA-009]

*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 March 14, 2022 10 a.m. EST Through March 21, 2022 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://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/​cdx-enepa-public/​action/​eis/​search.*

*EIS No. 20220036, Final, FERC, WY,*                     Clear Creek Expansion Project,  Review Period Ends: 04/25/2022, Contact: Office of External Affairs 866-208-3372                

*EIS No. 20220037, Final, USN, MD,*                     Testing and Training Activities in the Patuxent River Complex,  Review Period Ends: 04/25/2022, Contact: Crystal Ridgell 301-757-5282                

*EIS No. 20220038, Final, FERC, WI,*                     Wisconsin Access Project,  Review Period Ends: 04/25/2022, Contact: Office of External Affairs 866-208-3372                

*EIS No. 20220039, Final Supplement, AFRH, DC,*                     Armed Forces Retirement Home Master Plan Update,  Review Period Ends: 04/25/2022, Contact: Justin Seffens 202-541-7548                

Dated: March 21, 2022.

Cindy S. Barger,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 2022-06302 Filed 3-24-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL AND EXECUTIVE FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Global Growth Corporation (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Rozelle, President 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, to the best of my knowledge 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. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: October 7, 2009



|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Joseph Rozelle                                                  
|Joseph Rozelle
President
(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and  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, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Report for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
**EXHIBIT ITEM 32.2**

 

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

 

The certification set forth below is beingsubmitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose ofcomplying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode.

 

May10, 2006

 

BruceN. Warner, the Chief Financial Officer of Northern California Bancorp, Inc.certifies:

 

a.               thatthis periodic report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

b.              thatinformation contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of NorthernCalifornia Bancorp, Inc.

 

 
|   | /s/ Bruce N. Warner                                        |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Bruce N. Warner                                            |
|   | Chief Financial Officer  and  Principal Accounting Officer |

 

----
**TKP** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0604 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. PRESTON CSOO ROSSBACH ,

Defendant and Appellant .**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee ’s motion for a 15 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including December 27 , 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve its response brief

.

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

December 4 2023

12/04/2023

Case Number: DA 20-0604
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

The State of Texas, * From the 106 th District

Court of Gaines County,

Trial Court No. 13

- 4347

.

Vs. No. 11

- 14

- 00013

- CR * January 16, 2014

Cori Jetton Riley

, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has considered the State of Texas’s motion to dismiss its appeal and

concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with this

court ’ s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal

are taxed against the State of Tex as.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tuesday Shalon JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6198

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed December 18, 2017

(D.C. No. 5:09-CR-00021-M-3) (W.D. Oklahoma)

Steven W. Creager, Office of the United States Attorney, Western District of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Tuesday Shalon Johnson, Pro Se

Before BRISCOE, HARTZ, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Robert E. Bacharach, Circuit Judge

This appeal grew out of Ms. Tuesday Johnson’s sentence, which had been based *488in part on her status as a career offender, Ms. Johnson unsuccessfully moved for a reduction *in her*sentence based on an amendment (No. 782) to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. She then filed a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) so that she could appeal the denial of her motion to modify the sentence. The district court denied the motion, and Ms. Johnson requests a certificate of appealability to challenge this ruling.

We deny this request because Ms. Johnson does not need a certificate of appeala-bility to appeal the denial of her motion to. modify the sentence. *United States v. Randall,*666 F.3d 1238, 1240 n.4 (10th Cir. 2011). Because Ms. Johnson is pro se, however, we liberally construe her request for a certificate as an opening brief challenging the denial of her motion to modify. *See Sigala v. Bravo,*656 F.3d 1125, 1126 (10th Cir. 2011) (liberally construing a pro se inmate’s request for a certificate of appeal-ability). We review the denial of this motion under the abuse-of-discretion standard. *Buck v. Davis,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 759, 777, 197 L.Ed.2d 1 (2017). In our view, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.

Ms. Johnson contends that the career-offender guideline is unconstitutionally vague. But we have already rejected Ms. Johnson’s argument. *United States v. Johnson,*672 Fed.Appx. 879 (10th Cir. 2016) (unpublished). Our prior decision on this issue constitutes the law of the case. *See United States v. Graham,*704 F.3d 1275, 1278 (10th Cir. 2013) (stating that under the law-of-the-case doctrine, a court’s decision on a rule of law should continue to govern the same issue in later phases of the same case). Accordingly, we affirm.

*

 The parties do not request oral argument, and we do not believe that oral argument would *488be helpful. As a result, we are deciding the appeal based on the briefs. *See*Fed. R. App. P, 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).

This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the order and jüdgment may be cited for its persuasive value under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a) and 10th Cir. R, 32.1(A).
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 65

Authorizing expenditures by the Committee on Armed Services.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 20 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995

Mr. THURMOND, from the Committee on Armed Services, reported the following original resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and

Administration

RESOLUTION

Authorizing expenditures by the Committee on Armed

Services.

1 Resolved, That, in carrying out its powers, duties, and

2 functions under the Standing Rules of the Senate, in ac3 cordance with its jurisdiction under rule XXV of such

4 rules, including holding hearings, reporting such hearings,

5 and making investigations as authorized by paragraphs 1

6 and 8 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate,

7 the Committee on Armed Services is authorized from

8 March 1, 1995, through February 29, 1996, and March

9 1, 1996, through February 28, 1997, in its discretion—
2

SRES 65 RS

1 (1) to make expenditures from the contingent

2 fund of the Senate;

3 (2) to employ personnel; and

4 (3) with the prior consent of the Government

5 department or agency concerned and the Committee

6 on Rules and Administration, to use on a reimburs7 able or non-reimbursable basis the services of per8 sonnel of any such department or agency.

9 SEC. 2. The expenses of the committee for the period

10 March 1, 1995, through February 29, 1996, under this

11 resolution shall not exceed $2,948,079.

12 (b) For the period March 1, 1996, through February

13 28, 1997, expenses of the committee under this resolution

14 shall not exceed $3,015,532.

15 SEC. 3. The Committee shall report its findings, to16 gether with such recommendations for legislation as it

17 deems advisable, to the Senate at the earliest practicable

18 date, but not later than February 29, 1996, and February

19 28, 1997, respectively.

20 SEC. 4. Expenses of the committee under this resolu21 tion shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate

22 upon vouchers approved by the chairman of the commit23 tee, except that vouchers shall not be required—

24 (1) for the disbursement of salaries of employ25 ees paid at an annual rate;
3

SRES 65 RS

1 (2) for the payment of telecommunications pro2 vided by the Office of the Sergeant at Arms and

3 Doorkeeper, United States Senate;

4 (3) for the payment of stationery supplies pur5 chased through the Keeper of the Stationery, United

6 States Senate;

7 (4) for payments to the Postmaster, United

8 States Senate;

9 (5) for the payment of metered charges on

10 copying equipment provided by the Office of the Ser11 geant at Arms and Doorkeeper, United States Sen12 ate; or

13 (6) for the payment of Senate Recording and

14 Photographic Services.

15 SEC. 5. There are authorized such sums as may be

16 necessary for agency contributions related to the com17 pensation of employees of the committee from March 1,

18 1995, through February 29, 1996, and March 1, 1996,

19 through February 28, 1997, to be paid from the Appro20 priations account for ‘‘Expenses of Inquiries and

21 Investigations’’.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus PRESTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7611

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 22, 2018

Decided: February 27, 2018

*340Marcus Preston, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Lynn Dwyer , Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marcus Preston seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and unauthorized. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Preston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                         Hylan Shoob, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Global Health, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop H21-9, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027, Telephone: (404) 639-4796; Email:                         *HShoob@cdc.gov*.                    

                        The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Kalwant Smagh,

Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2022-05751 Filed 3-17-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00320-CV

John Koo-Hyun Kim, Appellant

v.

Austin Community College; Stephen B. Kinslow, as President of Austin Community

College; Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas; Representative Jaime Valdez; and 

Myra McDaniel, as Attorney for Austin Community College, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-07-000586, HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant John Koo-Hyun Kim filed a notice of appeal, apparently seeking to appeal

from the trial court’s order granting appellees’ motions for a continuance of a June 4, 2007 trial

setting. Because we lack jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal, we dismiss the cause for want

of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). 

Generally, courts of appeals may only exercise jurisdiction over appeals from final

orders or judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (“A judgment

is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record, except

as necessary to carry out the decree.”). There are certain statutory exceptions to this rule, which

explicitly allow interlocutory appeals from non-final orders. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.

Code Ann. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2006) (listing permissible interlocutory appeals). An appeal from
2

a trial court’s granting of a motion for continuance and delay of a trial setting may not be reviewed

by interlocutory appeal. See In re A.J.L., No. 02-04-00050-CV, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 4993, at *1

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth, June 3, 2004, no pet) (mem. op.); Lovall v. Yen, No. 14-01-01108-CV,

2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 354, at *1-3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 17, 2002, no pet.) (not

designated for publication).

Appellant seeks to appeal from the trial court’s order granting a continuance to

appellees. We may not consider this complaint in an interlocutory appeal. Therefore, we must

dismiss this cause for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: July 6, 2007
Exhibit 4.66


 


 


 


FILE NOTE


 


Employee – Geoffrey Guy


 


Date - 13/04/17


 


Base Pay Increase/Bonus and Removal of Allowances


 


Base Pay increase to £451,684 per annum with effect from
1/1/17.


 


Annual Bonus of £355,603 for 2016 paid with February 2017's
pay.


 


GW Pension Contributions and Car Allowance
have been aggregated in to 2017 base pay.


 


	/s/
    Philippa Crompton	 
	Philippa Crompton, HR Director	 
	 	 
	Date - 13/04/17	 




 


GW Pharmaceuticals plc Sovereign House Histon
Cambridge United Kingdom


Telephone: +44 (0)1223 266800 Facsimile: +44
(0)1223 235667 www.gwpharm.com


Company No. 4160917
Registered in England and Wales
# Official Journal C 87/20 A

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 87 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5020 April 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 87

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5020 April 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM THIRD COUNTRIES |
| 2007/C 087/01 | List of agencies and laboratories which third countries have made responsible for completing the documents which must accompany each consignment of wine imported into the Community (Article 29 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 883/2001) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM THIRD COUNTRIES

2007/C 087/01

List of agencies and laboratories which third countries have made responsible for completing the documents which must accompany each consignment of wine imported into the Community (Article 29 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 883/2001)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit









Exhibit 10.1








FORM OF SUB-RESELLER AGREEMENT


Signature Page


	
		
	Reseller Full Legal Name
	   Salesforce.org, a nonprofit public benefit corporation having its principal place of business at 50 Fremont Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California  94105






This Form of Sub-Reseller Agreement (this “Sub-Reseller Agreement”) is made and entered in by and between salesforce.com, inc., a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business at The Landmark @ One Market, Suite 300, San Francisco, California 94105 (“SFDC” or “Salesforce”) and the Reseller named above and amends that certain Reseller Agreement between Salesforce and Reseller dated as of August 1, 2015, as previously amended (the “Agreement”).  This Sub-Reseller Agreement is effective as of the later of the dates beneath the Parties’ signatures below (“Sub-Reseller Effective Date”), provided, however, that the dates of the Parties’ signatures are not separated by a period of time greater than ten (10) business days.  If such period is greater than ten (10) business days then this Sub-Reseller Agreement shall be deemed null and void and to be of no effect. Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Agreement. 
The Parties, by their respective authorized signatories, have duly executed this Sub-Reseller Agreement as of the Sub-Reseller Effective Date.
 

	
					
	Salesforce.com, Inc.
	 
	Reseller

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	By:
	 
	 
	By:
	 

	Name:
	 
	 
	Name:
	 

	Title:
	 
	 
	Title:
	 

	Date:
	 
	 
	Date:
	 




 











Exhibit 10.1





Sub-Reseller Agreement Terms & Conditions
		
	1.
	Resale Rights. SFDC hereby appoints SUB-RESELLER (“Sub-Reseller”) as a sub-reseller to whom Reseller may resell Services in accordance with Section 2(ii) of the Agreement, provided that Sub-Reseller may only resell such Services to Customer.  Reseller must ensure that Sub-Reseller complies with the terms of the Agreement applicable to Reseller as if Sub-Reseller were an original party to the Agreement and any breach by Sub-Reseller of the Agreement will be deemed a breach by Reseller.  Sub-Reseller is not be a third-party beneficiary of the Agreement.  


		
	2.
	Effect of Sub-Reseller Agreement.  Subject to the above modifications, the Agreement remains in full force and effect.


		
	3.
	Entire Agreement.  The terms and conditions herein contained constitute the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Sub-Reseller Agreement and supersede any previous and contemporaneous agreements and understandings, whether oral or written, between the Parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof.


		
	4.
	Counterparts. This Sub-Reseller Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, including facsimiles or scanned copies sent via email or otherwise, each of which will be deemed to be a duplicate original, but all of which, taken together, will be deemed to constitute a single instrument.