alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II 

Calendar No. 187 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 347 

[Report No. 116–98] 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 6, 2019 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 

Reported by Ms. MURKOWSKI, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To extend the authorization of the Uranium Mill Tailings 

Radiation Control Act of 1978 relating to the disposal 

site in Mesa County, Colorado. 

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 ‘‘Responsible Disposal 

5 Reauthorization Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 347 RS

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION. 

2 Section 112(a)(1)(B) of the Uranium Mill Tailings 

3 Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7922(a)(1)(B)) 

4 is amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2023’’ and insert5 ing ‘‘September 30, 2031’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Calendar No. 187 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 347 

[Report No. 116–98] 

AN ACT 

To extend the authorization of the Uranium Mill 

to the disposal site in Mesa County, Colorado. Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 relating 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 

Reported without amendment 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# C_2016334EN.01000401.xml

| 10.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 334/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 334/4

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 30 November 2015 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39767 — BEH Electricity

Rapporteur: Belgium

(2016/C 334/04)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee shares the Commission’s concerns expressed in its draft Decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 15 November 2015 under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee shares the Commission’s concerns expressed in its draft Decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 15 November 2015 under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’).

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings concerning Bulgarian Energy Holding EAD (‘BEH’) can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. A minority of Member States abstain. The majority of Member States agree. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings concerning Bulgarian Energy Holding EAD (‘BEH’) can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. A minority of Member States abstain. The majority of Member States agree.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by BEH are suitable and proportionate and should be made legally binding on BEH. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by BEH are suitable and proportionate and should be made legally binding on BEH.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by BEH, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission against BEH, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by BEH, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission against BEH, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---
# C_2016044EN.01000801.xml

| 5.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/8

---

Notice concerning the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of citric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China

Change of address of one company subject to an individual anti-dumping duty rate

(2016/C 44/05)

Imports of citric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China are subject to an anti-dumping duty imposed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/82 (1).

1

Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co. Ltd, TARIC additional code A880, a company subject to an individual anti-dumping duty rate of 15,3 % following Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/82, notified the Commission of its change of address from ‘No 106 Luzhong Large East Street, Laiwu City, Shandong Province, PRC’ to ‘No 89 Changjiang Street, Laiwu City, Shandong Province, PRC’.

The company argued that its change of address does not affect its right to continue to benefit from the individual anti-dumping duty rate.

The Commission has examined the information supplied and concluded that the change of address in no way affects the findings of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/82.

Therefore, the reference in Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/82 to:

| Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co., Ltd — No 106 Luzhong Large East Street, Laiwu City, Shandong Province, PRC | A880 |
| --- | --- |

Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co., Ltd — No 106 Luzhong Large East Street, Laiwu City, Shandong Province, PRC

A880

should be read as:

| Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co., Ltd — No 89 Changjiang Street, Laiwu City, Shandong Province, PRC | A880 |
| --- | --- |

Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co., Ltd — No 89 Changjiang Street, Laiwu City, Shandong Province, PRC

A880

---

(1)  OJ L 15, 22.1.2015, p. 8.

1

---
No. 09-6103.

#### Pierre R. Augustin, Petitioner v. Chase Home Finance LLC.

559 U.S. 941, 130 S. Ct. 1500,

176 L. Ed. 2d 117,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1377.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
No. 11A363.

#### Paul A. Gargano, Applicant v. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

565 U.S. 1052, 132 S. Ct. 794,

181 L. Ed. 2d 477,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8545.

November 28, 2011.

Application for stay, addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court, denied.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 3.1.6
                                                    ENDORSED - FILED
                                         In the office of the Secretary of State
                                              of the State of California
                                                     DEC 19 2003

                                                     KEVIN SHELLY
                                                  SECRETARY OF STATE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                               PARR SUB ONE, INC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A. NAME: The name of this Corporation is Parr Sub One, Inc.

     B. PURPOSE: The purpose of this Corporation is to engage in any lawful act
or activity for which a Corporation may be organized under the General
Corporation Law of California other than the banking business, the trust company
business, or the practice of a profession permitted to be incorporated by the
California Corporations Code.

     C. INITIAL AGENT: The name of this Corporation's initial agent for service
of process is:

                           GKL CORPORATE/SEARCH, INC.

     D. AUTHORIZED CAPITAL: This Corporation is authorized to issue only one
class of shares, which may be designated "common" shares. The total authorized
number of such shares which may be issued is One Million (1,000,000).

     E. LIMITATION OF DIRECTORS' LIABILITY: The liability of the Directors of
the Corporation for monetary damages shall be eliminated to the fullest extent
permissible under California Law.

     F. EXPANDED INDEMNIFICATION: The Corporation is authorized to provide
indemnification of agents (as defined in Section 317 of the Corporations Code)
for breach of duty to the Corporation and its stockholders through bylaw
provisions or through agreements with the agents, or both, in excess of the
indemnification otherwise permitted by Section 317 of the Corporations Code,
subject to the limits on such excess indemnification set forth in Section 204 of
the Corporations Code.



                                             /s/ Kevin Lutz
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             KEVIN LUTZ, Incorporator



                                  [Seal of the Office of the Secretary of State]
# C_2016115EN.01002102.xml

| 1.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/21

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2016/C 115/10)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 1.1.2016 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 1.1.2016 – 31.12.2016 |
| Member State | Spain |
| Stock or Group of stocks | BUM/ATLANT |
| Species | Blue Marlin (Makaira nigricans) |
| Zone | Atlantic Ocean |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 05/TQ72 |

Date and time of closure

1.1.2016

Duration

1.1.2016 – 31.12.2016

Member State

Spain

Stock or Group of stocks

BUM/ATLANT

Species

Blue Marlin (Makaira nigricans)

Makaira nigricans

Zone

Atlantic Ocean

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

05/TQ72

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
18 May 2007 

NSN: 8940-01-545-1787 (DBPB) MONOGRAPH NO: FS3-05 

Item: Dessert Bar, Shelf Stable, Peanut Butter (Flavor II) 

Document: PCR-D-004, Dessert Bar, Packaged in a Flexible Pouch, Shelf Stable 

Approximate Caloric Value Per Serving: 240 Component Classification: Primary 

Estimated Shelf Life: 36 months at 80oF 

Item Characteristics

Appearance: Intact and free of cracks, smooth surface, dense structure, light tan color, small pieces 

of peanuts visible on the surface and throughout. 

Odor: Lightly roasted peanut odor, free of coconut odor. 

Flavor: Lightly roasted peanut flavor, mild sweet cream flavor, free of coconut flavor. 

Texture: Dense matrix with smooth, creamy mouth feel, firm nut pieces throughout. 

Possible Deteriorative Changes 

Appearance: Darkened, crumbly, dense fudgy paste. Dessert bar sticking to the package. 

Odor: Rancid, stale, oxidized, peanut skin, old cooking oil. 

Flavor: Rancid, oxidized, stale. 

Texture: Excessively firm, crumbly. 

Unique Examination/Test Procedures

This product is vacuum packaged. Inspect for “inadequate vacuum” by firmly grasping the edges of 

the package and attempting to pull or stretch the material away from the product for a short time. A 

pouch with adequate vacuum will return to its original shape when pressure is released. If vacuum is 

adequate the product will not move easily within the pouch. 

Special Notes

NA
No. 11-7507.

#### Terrence Graves, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1133, 132 S. Ct. 1055,

181 L. Ed. 2d 774,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 64.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
No. 11-7212.

#### Christopher J. Emerson, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

565 U.S. 1161, 132 S. Ct. 1098,

181 L. Ed. 2d 985,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 752,

January 17, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
No. 11-7762.

#### Larry Langford, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1169, 132 S. Ct. 1121,

181 L. Ed. 2d 1000,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 672.

January 17, 2012.

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

Same case below, 647 F.3d 1309.
No. 09-662.

#### Chhun Eng, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

559 U.S. 938, 130 S. Ct. 1521,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1296.

176 L. Ed. 2d 112,

February 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 345 Fed. Appx. 297.
Exhibit 32.1



Sigmarenopro, Inc.

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350

Section 906 Certifications





In connection with the Annual Report of Sigmarenopro,
Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2021 (the “Report”) I, Ronald Jones, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge and belief:



(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.





This Certification is signed on November 30,
2023.



|Sigmarenopro, Inc.                                                                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                    
|By: /s/ Ronald Jones                                                                                                
|Ronald Jones,                                                                                                       
|Chief Executive Officer, (principal executive officer, principal accounting officer and principal financial officer)



This certification accompanies the Report pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, be deemed
filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



The forgoing certification is being furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether
made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
No. 11-7820.

#### Custodio Guerra, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1170, 132 S. Ct. 1125,

181 L. Ed. 2d 1003,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 680.

January 17, 2012.

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

Same case below, 448 Fed. Appx. 888.
No. 09-7820.

#### Rafael A. Jones, Petitioner v. Erin Milligan, et al.

559 U.S. 943, 130 S. Ct. 1510,

176 L. Ed. 2d 120,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1176.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Department of Environmental 

Conservation 

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER 

Post Office Box 111800 

410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 303 

Juneau, Alaska 99811-1800 

Main: 907.465.5066 

Fax: 907.465.5070 

14.023 

February 11, 2014 

Dennis McLerran 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA Region 10 

1200 Sixth Avenue 

Seattle WA 98101 

Definition of Regulated NSR Pollutants 

Dear Mr. McLerran: 

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) submits this letter in response to the 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10’s (EPA’s) concerns about the definition of “regulated NSR 

pollutant” that currently appears in ADEC’s Air Quality Regulations, 18 AAC 50. These regulations have been 

submitted to EPA for State Implementation Plan approval, most recently on January 24, 2013. 

ADEC has adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.040(h) the “regulated NSR pollutant” definition found in 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50).1 EPA recently pointed out to ADEC that this reference does not address precursor emissions in 

nonattainment areas. That aspect is instead addressed in the “regulated NSR pollutant” definition in 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii), which ADEC has not adopted.2 

ADEC intends to propose revisions to the appropriate sections of 18 AAC 50 to update the “regulated NSR 

pollutant” definition to incorporate the additional aspects provided under 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)((xxxvii) and to 

begin the public notice and comment process at the first opportunity. In the meantime, if ADEC receives an 

application for a major new source review stationary source in the Fairbanks PM-2.5 nonattainment area, staff will 

inform the applicant that EPA considers nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions as a precursor to PM-2.5 and that the 

application would need to address NOx as a PM-2.5 precursor in order for ADEC to issue a permit that would 

meet federal requirements. 

ADEC hopes this information will allow EPA to approve our currently submitted SIPs while we move forward 

with the rulemaking process to revise 18 AAC 50. 

                                                            

1 18 AAC 50.990(92) reads as follows: “‘regulated NSR pollutant’ has the meaning given in 40 C.F.R. 52.21(b)(50), adopted by reference in 

18 AAC 50.040(h); . . . .” 

2 18 AAC 50.040(i)(1)(B) reads as follows: “the following provisions are not adopted, and the terms defined in those provisions have the 

meaning given in 18 AAC 50.990: 

(i) 40 C.F.R. 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii) (“regulated NSR pollutant”); . . . .”
Dennis McLerran 2 February 11, 2014

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Alice Edwards at (907) 465-5105. 

Sincerely, 

Larry Hartig 

Commissioner 

cc: Debra Suzuki, EPA Region 10 

Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10 

Donna Deneen, EPA Region 10

Alice Edwards, Division of Air Quality, ADEC 

 John Kuterbach, Air Permits Program, Division of Air Quality, ADEC
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 37 (Thursday, February 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 8811]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4028]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Electric Utility Industry Sustainable Supply 
Chain Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on February 2, 2009, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Electric Utility 
Industry Sustainable Supply Chain Alliance, Inc. (``the Alliance'') has 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal 
place of business of the standards development organization and (2) the 
nature and scope of its standards development activities. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: Electric 
Utility Industry Sustainable Supply Chain Alliance, Inc., Raleigh, NC. 
The nature and scope of the Alliance's standards development activities 
are to improve the environmental performance of participants in the 
supply chains utilized by electric utilities, focusing on the 
development of voluntary consensus standards for evaluating the 
following: the environmental attributes of key materials and services 
provided to the electric utility industry; the environmental 
performance of suppliers to the electric utility industry; and the 
environmental performance of an electric utility industry company's 
supply chain operations.

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. E9-4028 Filed 2-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### Maude Ellison, *Plaintiff in*Error, v. State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division A.

Opinion Filed March 13, 1926.

*503W. *A. Hallowes, Jr.,*and *Miles W. Lewis,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*J. B. Johnson,*Attorney General, and *Marvin G. McIntosh,*Assistant, for Defendant in Error.

Brown, C. J.

— The only assignment of error which is insisted upon in argument is based upon the trial court permitting a certain statement to be made by the state attorney in his argument before the jury on the trial of this ease in the court below. The statement referred to is as follows: “You gentlemen have given a lot of your time, and I have given a lot of my time, there has been a lot of money spent in order to secure the defendant a fair trial in this case.”

It is not shown by the bill of exceptions, outside of the motion for a new trial, that there was any exception to the alleged remarks; nor that there was an adverse ruling or refusal to check the state attorney in his argument or to instruct the jury to disregard the same. While such statements as the one above made are not to be commended, it is doubtful if' in this instance the jury were told anything that they did hot already know. In view of the repeated instructions of the trial court in its general charge to the jury to base their finding solely upon the evidence submitted and the law in the case as given by the court, and in view also of the evidence in the case, we are of the opinion that no prejudicial error, if error at all, appears.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

*504Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur in the conclusion.

Buford, J., disqualified.
3 September 2010 ******************************** 

NSN: 8940 01 591 4193 (ABV) * MOMOGRAPH NO: M2B26

 ********************************

Item: Asian Style Beef Strips with Vegetables

Document: PCR-A-005 Asian Style Beef Strips with Vegetables, Packaged in a Flexible Pouch, 

Shelf Stable

Approximate Caloric Value Per Serving: 240 Component Classification: Primary

Estimated Shelf Life: 36 months at 80°F

Item Characteristics

Appearance:

General: Uniform mixture of whole muscle beef strips, green and red bell pepper 

pieces, bamboo shoots and water chestnuts in a seasoned sauce; may contain onion and 

celery pieces.

Beef strips: Random length, 5/8 inch width and not less than 1 inch in length; cooked 

beef color.

Green and red bell pepper: Cooked pepper color.

Bamboo shoots: Off white color.

Water chestnuts: Off white color.

Sauce: Smooth, moderately thin, glossy, semi translucent, golden yellow to medium 

brown color may contain flecks of herbs and spices.

Odor: General: Cooked beef and vegetables in a beef broth and ginger soy sauce.

Sauce: Beef broth and ginger soy sauce.

Flavor: General: Cooked beef and vegetables in a beef broth and ginger soy sauce.

Sauce: Beef broth and ginger soy sauce.

Texture:

Beef strips: Moist and tender.

Green and red bell peppers and bamboo shoots: Slightly soft.

Water chestnuts: Slightly firm.

Sauce: Smooth and moderately thin.

Possible Deteriorative Changes 

Appearance:

Excessively darkened scorched surface or interior meat. Sauce darkened, oiling off,

excessively thick or thin.

Odor: Scorched, sour, bitter, metallic, rancid

Flavor: Scorched, sour, bitter, metallic, rancid

Texture: Beef dry, chewy, tough, or mushy. Vegetables excessively mushy. Sauce excessively 

thick or thin.

Unique Examination/Test Procedures

NA

: 
3 September 2010 ******************************** 

NSN: 8940 01 591 4193 (ABV) * MOMOGRAPH NO: M2B26

 ********************************

Special Notes

NA

: