alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Rulemaking for GHG Emissions from New EGUs

Telecon Meeting with API and Others Regarding Co-Generation Units

May 7, 2014

Participants

Industry:

Susan Blevins, ExxonMobil

Robert Nolan, ExxonMobil

Doug Vanpelt, ExxonMobil

Charlie Bennett, Marathon Petroleum

Jeremy Castaneda, BP

Dave Pavlich, Phillips66

Maria Dunn, Phillips66

Puneet Verma, Chevron

John Wagner, API

Howard Feldman, API

EPA:

Kevin Culligan, OAR

Bob Wayland, OAR

Christian Fellner, OAR

Susan Wickwire, OAR
# C_2023271EN.01000601.xml

| 31.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — BM, NP v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR

(Case C-132/22, (1) Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (Special lists))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 3(1) - Obstacle - Equal treatment - Procedure for compiling lists for awarding posts in certain national public institutions - Requirement for admission linked to prior professional experience gained at those institutions - National legislation not allowing professional experience gained in other Member States to be taken into account - Whether justified - Objective of combating job insecurity)

(2023/C 271/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: BM, NP

Defendant: Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU and Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union

must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that provides that only candidates who have gained a certain amount of professional experience at national public higher-education institutions for the fine arts, music and dance may be admitted to a procedure for inclusion on the lists compiled for the purpose of recruiting, on permanent or temporary employment contracts, staff in those institutions and that thus prevents professional experience gained in other Member States from being taken into consideration for the purpose of admission to that procedure.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 23.5.2022.

---
Exhibit 32.2

      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


      Pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  1350, the undersigned  officer
of  Harold's Stores, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby  certifies
that  the  Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q  for  the
quarter  ended April 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully  complies
with  the  requirements  of  Section  13(a)  or  15(d),   as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and  that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents,  in
all  material respects, the financial condition and  results
of operations of the Company.

Date:  June 14, 2005          /s/Jodi Taylor
                              Jodi Taylor
                              Chief Financial Officer
No. 11-10653.

#### Walker *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
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

ANNET HENGIO; KIRION HENGIO,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-73709

Agency Nos. A099-634-497

A099-634-498

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Annet Hengio and Kirion Hengio, natives and citizens of Micronesia,

petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their request for a

continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

FILED

MAR 29 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-73709

abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526

F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), and we review de novo due process

claims, id. We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying the

Hengios’ request for a continuance because they did not demonstrate good cause. 

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009)

(factors considered in determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes

an abuse of discretion include the nature of the evidence excluded as a result of the

denial and the number of continuances previously granted). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00064-CR

NO. 03-14-00065-CR

Julie Ann Martinez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 391ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOS. D-09-0032-SA & D-13-0127-SB

HONORABLE THOMAS J. GOSSETT, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant Julie Ann Martinez was charged in 2009 with the offense of forgery of a

financial instrument. See Tex. Penal Code § 32.21(d). Appellant pleaded guilty and was placed on

deferred adjudication probation for three years, along with imposition of a fine and restitution.

Appellant’s probation was twice extended before the State filed a motion to revoke deferred

adjudication and to proceed to adjudicate guilt. This case was heard in conjunction with a new

charge against appellant for state jail felony theft. Appellant entered a guilty plea to the new theft

charge and pleaded true to six of the seven allegations in the motion to adjudicate guilt. After a

bench trial, the trial court sentenced appellant to 545 days in the State Jail Division of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice.
Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a

brief concluding that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements

of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why

there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967);

Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 86–87 (1988).

Appellant’s counsel has represented to the Court that he has provided copies of the

motion and brief to the appellant; advised appellant of her right to examine the appellate record, file

a pro se brief, and pursue discretionary review following dismissal of this appeal as frivolous; and

provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with the

mailing address of this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014);

see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. We have not received a pro se brief

from the appellant.

We have conducted an independent review of the record, including appellate

counsel’s brief, and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766;

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the

record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeals are frivolous.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

2
__________________________________________

Scott K. Field, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field

Affirmed

Filed: February 27, 2015

Do Not Publish

3
#### John H. SASSER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF the VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7203

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 6, 2018

Decided: March 14, 2018

John H. Sasser, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*296PER CURIAM:

John H. Sasser seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on July 28, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on August 31, 2017.* Because Sasser failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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*

*

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R, App. P, 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350



The undersigned hereby certifies that the
Form 10-K/A Annual Report of Quaker Chemical Corporation (the “Company”) for the annual period ended December 31, 2018
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: July 24, 2019

|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                              
|/s/    MARY DEAN HALL                                         
|Mary Dean Hall                                                
|Chief Financial Officer of Quaker Chemical
        Corporation
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****    - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский 

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

        - Student Loans
        - Grants
        - Laws
        - Data

# Readout of White House & Department of Education Listening Session with Educators with Disabilities

# Readout of White House & Department of Education Listening Session with Educators with Disabilities

July 21, 2021

**Contact:  **press@ed.gov

                                    -        
Today, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, White House Office of Public Engagement Associate Director Emily Voorde, and Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Deputy Assistant Secretary Katy Neas met with public educators from the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers. All assembled educators self-identified as Disabled. Secretary Cardona emphasized that educators with disabilities serve as critical advocates and role models for their students, particularly those with disabilities. The Secretary also reaffirmed the Biden Administration’s commitment to support educators with disabilities and students with disabilities. This roundtable comes just five days before the 31st anniversary of the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act and is part of the Administration’s engagement with Disabled Americans during July’s Disability Pride Month.
   -  Tags: Press Releases
          How Do I Find...?    - Student loans, forgiveness
- Higher Education Rulemaking
- College accreditation
- Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
- FERPA
- FAFSA
- 1098, tax forms
- More...
      Information About...    - Elevating Teaching
- Early Learning
- Engage Every Student
- Unlocking Career Success
- Cybersecurity
Search press releasesSearch for:      Find By Month    - February 2024 
- January 2024 
- December 2023 
- November 2023 
- October 2023 
- September 2023 
- August 2023 
- July 2023 
- June 2023 
- May 2023 
- April 2023 
- March 2023 
- All Press Releases
             
*Our mission* is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
- Student Loans
- Repaying Loans
- Defaulted Loans
- Loan Forgiveness
- Loan Servicers
- Grants & Programs
- Apply for Pell Grants
- Grants Forecast
- Apply for a Grant
- Laws & Guidance
- Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
- FERPA
- Civil Rights
- IDEA Website
- Data & Research
- Education Statistics
- Postsecondary Education Data
- ED Data Express
- Nation's Report Card
- What Works Clearinghouse
- Open Data Platform
- COVID Relief Data
- About Us
- Contact Us
- ED Offices
- Jobs
- Press Releases
- FAQs
- Recursos en español
- Budget, Performance
- Privacy Program
- Homeroom Blog
- Notices
- FOIA
- Privacy Policy
- Accessibility
- Security
- Information Quality
- Inspector General
- Whitehouse.gov
- USA.gov
- Benefits.gov
- Regulations.gov
#### JIAN FENG GUO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-72858

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 22, 2018

Jian Feng Guo, Pro Se

Sharon Michele Clay, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Virginia Lum, Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jian Feng Guo, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations, *Cruz Rendon v. Holder,*603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010), and review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act, *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Guo’s inadequate explanations for his acquisition of a passport in 2006; his repeated mis-statements and significant differences in his testimony as to basic facts, including his daughter’s date of birth and various employment dates; and an inconsistency as to whether he was arrested in the morning or the evening. *See id.*at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circum*575stances). Guo’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Guo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Huang v. Holder,*744 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2014).

We reject Guo’s contentions that the IJ violated his due process rights by considering the asylum officer’s interview notes. *See Lata,*204 F.3d at 1246 (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Guo’s contentions concerning his CAT claim because he failed to exhaust them before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: July

30, 2015 TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR

–2013
- 0602 FROM: EPA Region 1 SUBJECT: April 21 , 2015 Speech to Connecticut Environmental Business Council including

Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
**SUMMARY** On April 21 , 2015, Regional Administrator Curt Spalding spoke on EPA priorities to the Connecticut Environmental Business Council. The speech included the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plant s. **ATTENDEES** Curt Spalding, EPA Approximately

2 0 people attended this conference. Attendance was not taken by EPA
# C_2022002EN.01005201.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/52

---

Action brought on 8 November 2021 — Kaczorowska v EUIPO — Groupe Marcelle (MAESELLE)

(Case T-718/21)

(2022/C 2/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Katarzyna Kaczorowska (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: P. Kurcman, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Groupe Marcelle Inc. (Lachine, Quebec, Canada)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark MAESELLE — Application for registration No 18 130 823

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2021 in Case R 671/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | annul the decision of Opposition Division dated 15/02/2021 in opposition proceedings No B 3 108 698 with respect to all the goods and services for which the opposition has been upheld; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of Opposition Division dated 15/02/2021 in opposition proceedings No B 3 108 698 with respect to all the goods and services for which the opposition has been upheld;

| — | refer the case back to EUIPO so it can amend the decision on the substance of the case and register the trade mark at issue in respect of all the goods and services covered, without prejudice to those which are uncontested; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to EUIPO so it can amend the decision on the substance of the case and register the trade mark at issue in respect of all the goods and services covered, without prejudice to those which are uncontested;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division, Board of Appeal and General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division, Board of Appeal and General Court.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of the Cabinet Acquisition Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31,
2004 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                             /s/ James M. Cassidy
                                 President and Director and
                                 Chief Executivie Officer,
                                 Chief Financial Officer and
                                 Principal Accounting Officer
Date:  August 12, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1478]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-592]



[[Page 1478]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-482]


Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation; Notice of Withdrawal of 
Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License

    The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) 
has granted the request of Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation 
(the licensee) to withdraw its December 13, 1995, application for 
proposed amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-42 for the 
Wolf Creek Generating Station, located in Coffey County Kansas.
    The proposed amendment would have revised Surveillance Requirement 
4.1.3.1.3 to delete the requirement for performing the control rod drop 
surveillance test with T<INF>ave greater than or equal to 551 deg.F. 
This would have allowed performing the test with T<INF>ave below 
551 deg.F. This change would have also added justification to the Bases 
for the performance of the rod drop test with T<INF>ave below 
551 deg.F.
    The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on January 22, 
1996 (61 FR 1640). However, by letter dated December 12, 1996, the 
licensee withdrew the proposed change.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated December 13, 1995, and the licensee's 
letter dated December 12, 1996, which withdrew the application for 
license amendment. The above documents are available for public 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, 
N.W., Washington, D.C., and the local public documents rooms located at 
Emporia State University, William Allen White Library, 1200 Commercial 
Street, Emporia, Kansas 66801 and Washburn University School of Law 
Library, Topeka, Kansas 66621.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of January 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James C. Stone,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-592 Filed 1-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P