alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 135 (Wednesday, July 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18796]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP91-143-046]

Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership; Notice of 
Interest Plan

July 9, 1998.
    Take notice that on July 2, 1998, Great Lakes Gas Transmission 
Limited Partnership (Great Lakes) tendered for filing with the 
Commission a proposed Interest Plan to be applicable to Past Period 
refunds and charges amounts established in Great Lakes' rate proceeding 
in Docket No. RP91-143 et al., and approved under prior Commission 
orders.
    Great Lakes states that the filing of the Interest Plan is made 
pursuant to the Commission's order issued on June 29, 1998 in Docket 
No. RP91-143-045 and the U.S. Court of Appeals (DC Circuit) decision 
issued January 16, 1998, in Southeastern Michigan Gas v. FERC, 133 F. 
3d 34 (1998) reh'g denied (May 21, 1998), wherein Great Lakes was 
directed to determine interest on refunds and charges for the entire 
period that incremental rates were in effect.
    Any person desiring to file comments with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, 
should file their comments on or before July 17, 1998. The comments 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18796 Filed 7-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
No. 11-5971.

#### Chauncey Williams, Petitioner v. Virginia, et al.

565 U.S. 981, 132 S. Ct. 504,

181 L. Ed. 2d 355,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7799.

October 31, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
No. 11-5400.

#### George Timothy White, Petitioner v. Mike Mullin, Warden.

565 U.S. 905, 132 S. Ct. 306,

181 L. Ed. 2d 187,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5715.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 424 Fed. Appx. 774.
Exhibit 31.1
 
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting,
or caused such internal control over financial reporting
to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
covered by this report based on
such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 May 20, 2011
    /s/ Eugene S. KahnEugene S. KahnChief Executive Officer
No. 11-5049.

#### Dana Lydell Smith, Petitioner v. Veterans Administration, et al.

565 U.S. 934, 132 S. Ct. 381,

181 L. Ed. 2d 241,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6409.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 636 F.3d 1306.
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

DISTRIBUTION 

5430 MIFFLIN AVENUE 

NEW CUMBERLAND, PENNSYLVANIA 17070-5004 

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES 

 POSTED BY ORDER OF THE

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 

An Agency of the United States Government 

This Notice is posted pursuant to an Order by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission dated January 8, 2024, which found that a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., has occurred at the Defense Logistics 

Agency, Defense Distribution Richmond, Virginia. 

Federal law requires that there be no discrimination against any employee or applicant for 

employment because of that person's RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, NATIONAL ORIGIN, 

AGE, or DISABILITY with respect to hiring, firing, promotion, compensation, or other terms, 

conditions, or privilege of employment. 

Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Distribution Richmond, Virginia (hereinafter referred to as 

"facility") supports and will comply with such Federal law and will not take action against 

individuals because they have exercised their rights under the law. This facility has been found to 

have subjected an employee to a hostile work environment based on sexual harassment and 

unlawful reprisal. As such, the Agency was ordered to: (1) pay Complainant compensatory 

damages; (2) pay Complainant back pay; (3) offer Complainant reinstatement or alternatively 

Complainant can accept front pay; (4) training for responsible management officials; (5) 

attorney’s fees; and (6) post this notice. 

This facility will not in any manner restrain, interfere, coerce, or retaliate against any individual 

who exercises his or her right to oppose practices made unlawful by, or who participates in 

proceedings pursuant to, Federal equal employment opportunity law.

Duly Authorized Agency Representative: ________________________________ 

Date Posted: _21 FEB 2024____

Posting Expires: _22 APR 2024__ 

29 C.F.R Part 1614
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE IMELDO JAIMEZ LLANEZ, AKA

Jose Recinos Jimenez, AKA Andres

Rodriguez,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-71302

Agency No. A095-001-858

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 14, 2015** 

Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Jose Imeldo Jaimez Llanez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,

FILED

OCT 21 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence the agency’s factual findings. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,

1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Jaimez Llanez does not contend he suffered past persecution, but fears he

will be persecuted on account of his status as an outsider, or in connection with

threats his brother received. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that

Jaimez Llanez failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of

a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)

(petitioner’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or

random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”); see

also Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2001) (evidence of safe

relocation undermined claim of future fear). Thus, Jaimez Llanez’s claim for

asylum fails.

Because Jaimez Llanez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he

necessarily cannot meet the stricter standard of proof to establish eligibility for

withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190. 

Finally, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief

because Jaimez Llanez failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be

2 13-71302
tortured by the Mexican government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See

Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 13-71302
### to). SQz-as i^id fo&l/L C&C4<ilAj&,- yyi^i J/'6~7 ffy/L&dJ. Corpus- ^by^U-coc/lb
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT, AS AMENDED

I, James A. Blome, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Calyxt, Inc.; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

Date: March 5, 2020

/s/ James A. Blome

James A. Blome

Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: PETITION OF GREGORY A. 

BELUSCHAK AND AT LEAST FIVE (5) 

ELECTORS OF THE FIRST WARD OF 

THE CITY OF CLAIRTON TO APPOINT 

GREGORY A. BELUSCHAK, A 

REGISTERED ELECTOR IN AND 

RESIDENT OF THE FIRST WARD OF 

THE CITY OF CLAIRTON, TO FILL THE 

CURRENT VACANCY ON CLAIRTON 

CITY COUNCIL FOR THE FIRST WARD 

OF THE CITY OF CLAIRTON, 

ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

RE: PETITION OF RICHARD L. 

LATTANZI, RAYMOND A. KURTA AND 

FIVE (5) ELECTORS OF THE FIRST 

WARD OF THE CITY OF CLAIRTON TO 

APPOINT RAYMOND A. ("TONY") 

KURTA TO FILL THE VACANCY ON 

CLAIRTON CITY COUNCIL DUE TO THE 

PASSING OF COUNCILMAN JOHN A. 

LATTANZI ON OCTOBER 24, 2016

APPEAL OF: GREGORY A. BELUSCHAK

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 4 WAP 2017

Appeal from the Order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

entered January 17, 2017 at No. GD-16-

023932.

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of March, 2017, this matter is hereby transferred to the 

Commonwealth Court.
No. 11-5283.

#### James John Williams, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 899, 132 S. Ct. 292,

181 L. Ed. 2d 176,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5565.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 428 Fed. Appx. 242.
Exhibit 32.3

Written Statement of the Chief Operating Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned President and Chief Operating Officer of Regency Centers Corporation, the general
partner of Regency Centers, L.P.(the Partnership), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Partnership for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Partnership.

Date: November 6, 2006



|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Mary Lou Fiala                                                                   
|Mary Lou Fiala                                                                       
|Chief Operating Officer of Regency Centers Corporation, general partner of registrant
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4.
1 United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41402 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee
v. MARIO ALBERTO DEL BAL-VILLEGAS Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:05-CR-2666-1 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mario Alberto Del Bal-Villegas appeals his guilty-plea conviction of, and sentence for, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by being found in the United States without permission after deportation. Del Bal-Villegas contends that his sentence is unreasonable because this court’s post-Booker1 rulings have effectively reinstated the mandatory sentencing guideline regime condemned in United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 25, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-41402

2 Booker

. This argument is foreclosed. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007). In light ofApprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Del Bal-Villegas challenges the constituti onality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements ofthe offense that must be found by a jury. This court has held that this issue is “fully foreclosed from further debate.” U nited States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
| Name      of Subsidiary                      | State      of Incorporation |
|----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
|                                         |                        |
| AIA-DCAP      Corp.(1)                       | Pennsylvania                |
| Barry      Scott Agency Inc.(2)              | New      York               |
| Barry      Scott Companies, Inc.(1)          | Delaware                    |
| Blast      Acquisition Corp.                 | Delaware                    |
| DCAP      Agency, Inc.                       | New      York               |
| DCAP      Management Corp.                   | New      York               |
| Dealers      Choice Automotive Planning Inc. | New      York               |
| DCAP      Accurate, Inc.(2)                  | Delaware                    |
| Intandem      Corp.                          | New      York               |
| Payments      Inc.                           | New      York               |

| (1)   | A      wholly-owned subsidiary of Blast Acquisition  Corp. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | A      wholly-owned subsidiary of Barry Scott Companies,  Inc. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
#### *State, Respondent, v. Lyle, Petitioner,*

No. 92079-6.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 46101-3-II, July 10, 2015, 188 Wn. App. 848. *Granted on a specific issue*and *remanded*to the trial court February 19, 2016.
Exhibit 32.2

Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned Managing Director and Chief Financial Officer of Regency Centers Corporation, the
general partner of Regency Centers, L.P.(the Partnership), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Partnership for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Partnership.

Date: November 5, 2007



|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Bruce M. Johnson                                                                 
|Bruce M. Johnson                                                                     
|Chief Financial Officer of Regency Centers Corporation, general partner of registrant
No. 11-5341.

#### Juan Francisco Elizondo-Ramos, aka Juan Elizondo, aka Francisco Elizondo, aka Juan Francisco Elizondo, aka Angel Elizondo, aka Juan F. Elizondo, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 902, 132 S. Ct. 299,

181 L. Ed. 2d 182,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5601.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 423 Fed. Appx. 379.
**CEQ comments on IASC draft Ammonia Assessment Foster**  **Foster,**

**, Stiven**  **to: IRIS**  **03/01/2012 03:27 PM Cc**  **: "Lunn, Molly", "Butler, Melissa (Intern)"** 

**From: "Foster, Stiven"**  **To: IRIS**  **Cc: "Lunn, Molly" , "Butler, Melissa (Intern)"** 

**History:**

Our office appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the draft ammonia assessment . The assessment is clearly written and the analyses appear to be scientifically sound . This is the second assessment provided to the interagency reviewers that uses the new format , which we continue to support. We have a few minor comments on the format, including a suggestion that EPA consider reversing the order of the synthesis of major toxicological effects (section 1.1) and the weight of evidence evaluation for toxicological effects (1.2). The current order makes sense from an analytical perspective, but from a reader’s perspective it might be helpful to start with the highest level review. We would also suggest that the synthesis section be retitled summary of major toxicological effects . Because the new format presents less information about individual studies it might be helpful to include additional references to the HERO. Currently, the database is mentioned in the preamble and in the literature search section, but some readers may not focus these sections. We suggest that you add references to HERO in the Hazard ID chapter and Appendix A. We do not have any substantive comments on the content of this assessment . The conclusion that there are insufficient data to derive an RfD is justified. Likewise, the conclusion that there is inadequate information to assess the carcinogenic potential is reasonable. The derivation of the RfC, including the choice of critical study/endpoint, and use of uncertainty factors, seems appropriate. We thank you again for the opportunity to review this assessment and look forward the interagency discussion. Regards, Stiven Foster Deputy Associate Director for Chemical Regulations Council on Environmental Quality
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Dynamic Materials Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard A. Santa, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(i)                  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)               The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

February 28, 2011

 

 
|   | /s/   Richard A. Santa                              |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   | Richard   A. Santa                                  |
|   | Senior   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   | of   Dynamic Materials Corporation                  |

 

 

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

 

1

----
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3243 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to ensure campus access 

at public institutions of higher education for religious groups. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 12, 2019 

Mr. WALBERG (for himself, Mrs. HARTZLER, and Mr. WALKER) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 

Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to ensure 

campus access at public institutions of higher education 

for religious groups. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Equal Campus Access 

5 Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CAMPUS ACCESS FOR RELIGIOUS GROUPS. 

7 Part B of title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

8 (20 U.S.C. 1011 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 

9 the following: 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3243 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 124. CAMPUS ACCESS FOR RELIGIOUS GROUPS. 

2 ‘‘None of the funds made available under this Act 

3 may be provided to any public institution of higher edu4 cation that denies to a religious student organization any 

5 right, benefit, or privilege that is otherwise afforded to 

6 other student organizations at the institution (including 

7 full access to the facilities of the institution and official 

8 recognition of the organization by the institution) because 

9 of the religious beliefs, practices, speech, leadership stand10 ards, or standards of conduct of the religious student or11 ganization.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATIONS

(Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350)



The undersigned hereby certifies
that, to his knowledge (i) the Form 10-Q filed by ECB Bancorp, Inc. (the Issuer) for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the period presented therein.



|      |  |                   |  |                                      
|----- |  | ----------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: |  | November 16, 2005 |  | /s/ Arthur H. Keeney III             
|      |  |                   |  | Arthur H. Keeney III                 
|      |  |                   |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|      |  |                  
|Date: |  | November 16, 2005 |  | /s/ Gary M. Adams                    
|      |  |                   |  | Gary M. Adams                        
|      |  |                   |  | Senior Vice President                
|      |  |                   |  | and Chief Financial Officer
No. 11-5494.

#### Ronald Craig Potter, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 910, 132 S. Ct. 319,

181 L. Ed. 2d 197,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6117.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 630 F.3d 1260.