alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
GLOBAL NUCLEAR SECURITY

COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAM

BIOLOGICAL THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAM

The GNS Program has ongoing projects 

with five countries and four international 

organizations. These projects assist partner 

nations to:

• Develop capabilities to secure vulnerable 

nuclear and radiological materials, facilities, 

and related expertise; 

• Develop capabilities to detect and interdict 

illicit trafficking of nuclear and radiological 

materials and return them to regulatory 

control and to detect, identify, and return 

nuclear weapon components to regulatory 

control; and

• Prevent the proliferation of materials, 

technologies, and expertise to state and 

non-state actors with the intent to develop 

or enhance nuclear weapon capabilities.

Additionally, the GNS Program works with 

U.S. interagency and DoD partners to support 

deliberate and contingency nuclear weapon 

and fissile material transportation and 

disposition missions. 

The DoD’s CTR Program is a threat based, counter-weapons of mass destruction 

program, and the Department works cooperatively with allies and partners to reduce 

or eliminate WMD threats. The DoD’s CTR Program is guided by the 2017 National 

Security Strategy, 2018 National Defense Strategy, the DoD Countering Weapons 

of Mass Destruction Strategy. Its primary purpose is to reduce and eliminate WMD 

threats. The cooperative nature of the DoD’s CTR activities yields a secondary benefit 

of strengthening regional alliances, deepening existing partnerships, and attracting 

new partners. Consequently, the DoD, through the CTR Program, has helped create a 

network of likeminded allies and partners with increased threat reduction capabilities 

that contribute and advance the interests and security of the United States of America.

The GNS Program supports the cooperative dismantlement of nuclear weapon 

programs, as well as the transportation and disposition of related systems and 

associated materials. The GNS Program builds international partner capacity 

and expertise to secure nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons-usable or high-threat 

radiological materials, nuclear weapons components, equipment, technology, and 

expertise, and to counter nuclear smuggling. 

DTRA provides cross-cutting solutions to enable the Department of Defense, the United 

States Government, and international partners to Deter strategic attack against the 

United States and its allies; Prevent, reduce, and counter WMD and emerging threats; DTRA MISSION

and Prevail against WMD-armed adversaries in crisis and conflict.

KEY FACTS

Training 

center built to 

ensure longterm nuclear 

weapons 

security

Cesium 

irradiators 

transported 

for final 

disposition

Railcar used to 

ship nuclear 

weapons 

cargo to 

dismantlement 

facilities
##### 



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 Form 10-Q of Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Noven)
for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert C. Strauss,
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Noven, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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, as amended; and 2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Noven. /s/ Robert C. Strauss  
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Noven
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No. 201 500247

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Appellee

v.


### Nathaniel RODRIGUEZ Aviation Electronics Technician First Class Petty Officer ( AT1 ) , U.S. Navy Appellant

_________________________ Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: C aptain Ann K. Minami, JAGC, USN

. For Appellant: Lieutenant C ommander William L. Geraty
, J AGC, USN

. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq

.

__ _______________________ Decided 2 October 2018

____________________ _____ Before H UTCHISON , W OODARD , and R USSELL , Appellate Military Ju dges

_________________________After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authori ty. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).
FOR THE COURT

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court
#### COM. v. HERRINGTON, Q.

2172 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/11/2017

GP-61-CR-0004001-2012 (Philadelphia)

Quashed
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 Windswept Environmental
Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 1, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I , Michael O'Reilly, 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/ Michael O'Reilly
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             Michael O'Reilly
                                             Chief Executive Officer

                                             Dated: May 15, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8563 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8563

 To require the Secretary of the Army to conduct a study to determine 
  the costs for the Corps of Engineers to ensure that certain project 
  activities authorized under Nationwide Permit 14 comply with public 
               safety conditions, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 9, 2020

   Mr. Long introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of the Army to conduct a study to determine 
  the costs for the Corps of Engineers to ensure that certain project 
  activities authorized under Nationwide Permit 14 comply with public 
               safety conditions, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. STUDY.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army, acting through the 
Chief of Engineers, shall conduct a study to determine the costs for 
the Corps of Engineers to--
            (1) include public safety as a condition for authorizing a 
        proposed project activity under Nationwide Permit 14; and
            (2) inspect an authorized project activity after 
        construction to ensure that such project activity is maintained 
        in compliance with all conditions related to public safety 
        under Nationwide Permit 14.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report containing the 
results of the study conducted under subsection (a).
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Nationwide permit 14.--The term ``Nationwide Permit 
        14'' means the nationwide permit, relating to linear 
        transportation projects, issued pursuant to section 10 of the 
        Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) and section 404 of the 
        Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
            (2) Project activity.--The term ``project activity'' means 
        an activity for which a permittee is required to submit a pre-
        construction notification under Nationwide Permit 14.
                                 <all>
```
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-90,379-01

EX P ARTE HAO TICH H UYNH, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. W03-26686-I(A ) IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 2 OF DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 4 1 8 S .W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of robber y and sentenc ed to three y ear s’ imprisonment. He did not appea l his conviction. Applicant contends that his plea was involuntary beca use counsel did not a dvise Applicant of potential defe nsive issues. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. In these circ umstances, add i t ional fac ts are neede d. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the a ppropriate forum for

finding s of fa ct. The trial court may use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d). In the2

appropr iate ca se, the trial c ourt may rely on its personal re collection. Id

. I t appea rs that Applicant is repr esente d by counsel. I f the trial court elec ts to hold a hear ing, it shall deter

mine if Applicant is repr esente d by counsel, and if not, whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, t h e t rial court shall appoint an attorney to repre sent Applicant at the hear ing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law in reg ard to Applicant’s claim t hat hi s plea was involuntary

. The trial court shall also make a n y other findings of fac t and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropr iate to the dispositi on of Applicant’s claim for habea s corpus re lief. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 9 0 d ay s o f t h is order

. A supplemental transcr ipt containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court within 120 day s of the date of this order. A ny extensions of ti me must be re quested by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court.

Filed: Oc tober 9, 2019 Do not publish
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 Annual Report of eBizware, Inc.  (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended August 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark W. DeFoor, Principal Executive Officer and Principal 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) 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: November 18, 2015  /s/ Mark W. DeFoor Mark W. DeFoor Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
No. 11-9830.

#### Dozier *v.*Nevada.

Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>



                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT

                     Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
                         Securities Exchange Act of 1934

        Date of Report (date of earliest event reported): August 21, 2002



                            LYONDELL CHEMICAL COMPANY
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

                                    Delaware
                 (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)

         1-10145                                      95-4160558
(Commission File Number)                   (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)



1221 McKinney Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas                   77010
  (Address of principal executive offices)                      (Zip Code)


                                 (713) 652-7200
              (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

                                Not Applicable
          (Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)



<PAGE>



Item 7. Financial Statements and Exhibits.

     (c) Exhibits.

          99.1  Press Release

Item 9. Regulation FD Disclosure.

On August 21, 2002, the shareholders of Lyondell Chemical Company ("Lyondell")
approved (1) the amendment and restatement of Lyondell's certificate of
incorporation to create new Series B Common Stock and (2) the issuance to
Occidental Chemical Holding Corporation ("OCHC"), a subsidiary of Occidental
Petroleum Corporation ("Occidental"), of 34 million shares of Series B Common
Stock, warrants to purchase 5 million shares of Lyondell's original common stock
at a price of $25 per share and the right to receive a contingent payment having
a value of up to $35 million (collectively, the "Securities"). Lyondell issued
the Securities to OCHC on August 22, 2002 for $440 million in cash and used the
proceeds of the issuance to purchase Occidental's 29.5% interest in Equistar
Chemicals, LP. Lyondell now owns 70.5% of Equistar Chemicals, LP. Lyondell's
press release regarding these events is attached as Exhibit 99.1 to this Current
Report on Form 8-K.

<PAGE>


                                    SIGNATURE

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

                                         LYONDELL CHEMICAL COMPANY

                                         By:  /s/ Kerry A. Galvin
                                             -----------------------------------
                                         Kerry A. Galvin
                                         Senior Vice President, General Counsel,
                                         and Secretary

Date: August 22, 2002


<PAGE>

                                INDEX TO EXHIBITS

Exhibit
Number            Description
-------           -----------
99.1         Press Release
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo MORENO-HERNANDEZ, AKA Ricardo Moreno Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10119

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 7, 2018 * San Francisco, California

Filed February 09, 2018

*657Shelley Kay-Glenn Clemens, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU-Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Stephanié Kathryn Bond, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Stephanie K Bond, PC, Tucson,-AZ, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TASHIMA and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ricardo Moreno-Hernandez appeals his jury conviction for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction over this appeal, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Moreno-Hernandez’s motion for a new trial on the grounds of his excluded prior consistent hearsay statement to Immigration *&*Customs Enforcement officials in September 2015 that he was born in Santa Monica, California. The district court correctly identified Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) and the four-element test from *United States v. Collicott,*92 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir.), *as amended*(Oct. 21, 1996), that guide the admission of prior consistent hearsay statements. The district court’s application of this Rule to Moreno-Hernandez’s prior consistent hearsay statement is not implausible or illogical. *United States v. Hinkson,*585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

The prosecution’s inadvertent misstatement does not rise to the level of prosecu-torial misconduct, and does not constitute plain error. *See, e.g., United States v. Lloyd,*807 F.3d 1128, 1168 (9th Cir. 2015) (“A prosecutor’s inadvertent mistakes or misstatements are not misconduct.”).

For these reasons, Moreno-Hernandez is not entitled to a new trial.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### ARRO CONSULTING, INC. v. BENNETT, BREWER & ASSOC.

1673 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/05/2017

13-09159 (Lancaster)

Reversed/Remanded
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21

             SUBSIDIARIES AND PARTNERSHIPS OF PLAINS RESOURCES INC.

Subsidiaries
------------

 .  PMCT INC.

 .  Plains Terminal & Transfer Corporation

 .  Plains Marketing & Transportation Inc.

 .  Plains Liquids Transport Inc.

 .  Plains Resources International Inc.

 .  PLX Crude Lines Inc.

 .  PRI Producing Inc.

 .  Stocker Resources Inc.

 .  Calumet Florida, Inc.

 .  Plains Illinois Inc.

 .  PLX Ingleside Inc.

Partnerships
------------

 .  Plains Gulf Coast Limited Partnership

 .  Stocker Resources, L.P.
From: Meehan, Clair Subject: Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications Proposed Rule - November 14 webinar follow-up

Date: Monday, November 18, 2013 2:55:43 PM

Attachments: WQS Webinar 2013 11 14_Final Clean.pdf



## Thank you for your interest in EPA’s November 14 webinar on the Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications Proposed Rule. Attached, please find a copy of the slides shared. As mentioned during the webinar, the correct email for sending clarifying questions is: WQSRegulatoryClarifications@epa.gov

.



## HOW TO SUBMIT COMMENTS ON THE RULEMAKING - **NOTE: EXTENSION TO THE**

**COMMENT PERIOD** Written comments must be received by the last day of the comment period, **January 2,**

**2014**

. The comment period was originally scheduled to end on December 3, 2013.

If you wish to submit a comment on the proposed rule, your comment must be directed to the associated docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606) by one of the following methods:

· Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

· Email: ow-docket@epa.gov

.

· Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention: Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OW–2010–0606.

· Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA West Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2010– 0606. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket Center’s normal hours of operation. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information by calling 202–566–2426.

**FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE RULEMAKING** More information about the proposed rulemaking is available on EPA’s website at: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/wqs_index.cfm

.

For more information about submitting your public comments, please refer to the notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-04/pdf/2013-21140.pdf ).

**QUESTIONS?** For more information about the public meeting or webinars, please contact: Ms. Janita Aguirre, US EPA, at 202.566.1149 or aguirre.janita@epa.gov

. If you have additional

## clarifying questions about the proposed rule, please contact US EPA at the phone and email address dedicated to this rulemaking: 202-566-1860 or WQSRegulatoryClarifications@epa.gov.

Clair Meehan | Environmental Scientist

clair.meehan@tetratech.com

Tetra Tech | Complex World, Clear Solutions
www.tetratech.com

PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from

your system. 

# P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10925 

Conference Calendar

 

VINCENT JOHN BROWN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, Director, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:96-CV-227

- - - - - - - - - -

October 24, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Vincent John Brown, Texas inmate # 437587, challenges the

district court’s dismissal, as frivolous, of his civil rights

complaint. For essentially the same reasons as relied upon by

the district court in its order of dismissal, we conclude that

the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding

that the complaint lacked an arguable basis in law. See Brown v.

Johnson, No. 2:96-CV-0227 (N.D. Tex. July 11, 1996).
No. 96-10925

- 2 -

For the first time on appeal, Brown contends that his

complaint is maintainable because the defendants purportedly

violated Texas law and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act’s

saccharin-warning provisions. No error, plain or otherwise,

ensued by the district court’s failure to consider this argument;

the outcome would not be altered. See Highlands Ins. v. National

Union Fire Ins., 27 F.3d 1027, 1031-32 (5th Cir. 1994) (applying

plain-error standard in civil case to issue raised for the first

time on appeal), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 903 (1995).

This appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. 

5th Cir. R. 42.2. It is DISMISSED. We caution Brown that any

additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the

imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Brown is further

cautioned to review all pending appeals to ensure that they do

not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been

previously decided by this court.

APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.