alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C.L., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES and Guardian ad Litem Program, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1683

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 31, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.

Denied.
Charles JENKINS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1673

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 69 (Monday, April 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16893-16894]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8279]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,197]


Republic Doors and Frames, Inc., McKenzie, TN; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended, an investigation was initiated on February 10, 2009 in 
response to a petition filed by a Tennessee State AFL-CIO 
representative on behalf of workers of Republic Doors and Frames, Inc., 
McKenzie, Tennessee.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.


[[Page 16894]]


    Signed in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of March 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-8279 Filed 4-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Richard EMANUEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2467

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed March 6, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Allison A. Havens, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See**Vennisee v. State*, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D2170, D2172-73, 235 So.3d 947, ---- - ----, 2017 WL 4529658 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 11, 2017) ; *Rogers v. State*, 223 So.3d 281, 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ; *Currie v. State*, 219 So.3d 960, 960-61 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).

SAWAYA, ORFINGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 68 (Friday, April 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 16391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7872]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF FAITH-BASED AND NEIGHBORHOOD PARTNERSHIPS


Notice of Establishment

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 
U.S.C. App.) and Executive Order 13488 (74 FR 6533, February 9, 2009), 
the Executive Director of the Office for Faith-based and Neighborhood 
Partnerships announces the establishment of the President's Advisory 
Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
    The Council shall bring together leaders and experts in fields 
related to the work of faith-based and neighborhood organizations in 
order to: Identify best practices and successful modes of delivering 
social services; evaluate the need for improvements in the 
implementation and coordination of public policies relating to faith-
based and other neighborhood organizations; and make recommendations 
for changes in policies, programs, and practices.
    The President's Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood 
Partnerships will advise the Executive Director of the White House 
Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The Council, after 
conducting its research, reviews, and deliberation, shall submit a 
written description of its recommendations to the Executive Director of 
the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
    For information, contact Michael Wear, Executive Assistant, White 
House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, 708 Jackson 
Place, NW., Washington, DC 20006, telephone 202/456-4708.

    Dated: April 1, 2009.
Joshua DuBois,
Executive Director, Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood 
Partnerships, White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood 
Partnerships.
[FR Doc. E9-7872 Filed 4-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4154-07-P
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 69 (Monday, April 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 16831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8124]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Alpine County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC)

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Alpine County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will hold 
its first meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on April 23, 2009, and will begin at 6 
p.m. The meeting will be held in Alpine County at Turtle Rock Park 
Community Center, 17300 State Route 89 Markleeville, CA 96120.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marnie Bonesteel, RAC Coordinator, 
USDA, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Carson Ranger District, 1536 S. 
Carson Street, Carson City, NV 89701 (775) 884-8140; e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5439363b3a3127203131381432277a3231307a2127"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b2dfd0dddcd7c1c6d7d7def2d4c19cd4d7d69cc7c1">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda items to be covered include: (1) 
Introductions of committee members and Forest Service personnel. (2) 
Review legislation and re-authorization of the Secure Rule Schools and 
Community Self-Determination Act. (3) Review vacancies on the committee 
and process for recruiting and filling vacancies. (4) Receive materials 
explaining the process for considering and recommending Title II 
projects. (5) Public Comment. The meeting is open to the public. Public 
input opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the 
opportunity to address the Committee at that time.

    Dated: March 26, 2009.
Genny E. Wilson,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-8124 Filed 4-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit
32.2







CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Elena
Pochapski, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of
Siberian Energy Group Inc. on Form 10-KSB/A for the annual period ended December
31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
10-KSB/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Siberian Energy Group Inc.





By:/s/ Elena
Pochapski


Elena
Pochapski


Chief
Financial Officer


(Principal
Accounting Officer)





July 16,
2008
EXHIBIT 10.4

                          EXTENSION OF LEASE AGREEMENT


This Agreement is made as of this 5th day of January, 2006 between Bannockburn
Executive Plaza, L.L.C., ("Landlord"), and Agility Centralized Research
Services, Inc. ("Tenant"):

Whereas, on the 19th day of January, 2004 the parties hereto entered into a
written lease ("Lease") for a term of two (2) years beginning the 1st day of
February, 2004 and terminating on the 31st day of January, 2006 for the Premises
commonly known as Suite 133 in Bannockburn Executive Plaza located at 2275 Half
Day Road, in Bannockburn, Illinois.

And Whereas, the parties wish to continue the said Lease on the terms herein
stated;

Now, Therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein, and in the
stated Lease contained, the parties hereby agree that the term of the said Lease
is extended for a period of one (1) year expiring on the 31st day of January,
2007 and that the said extended term is under the same terms, provisions, and
conditions as in the said Lease now contained, except that the Base Rent in the
first (1st) year of this Extension shall be increased Fifty One Dollars ($51.00)
monthly to become Seventeen Hundred Sixty & 00/100 Dollars ($1,760.00).

In Witness Whereof,

LANDLORD:                                    TENANT:
Bannockburn Executive Plaza, L.L.C.          Agility Centralized Research
by Dolan Associates, Ltd., as Agent             Services, Inc.

By: /s/ Harry Dolan                          By: /s/ B. Steven Springrose
    -------------------------------              -------------------------------
    Its Managing Member                          Its CEO
Michael KANE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Stephen CANTOR, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1485

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 31.1  EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Conrad R Huss, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Brazil Gold Corp.  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 quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within ninety (90) days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and  c) presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;  5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and  6. The registrants other certifying officer and I have indicated in this report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.   Date:  March 21, 2013  By: /s/Conrad R. Huss Name: Conrad R. Huss Title: Director, Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, Chief Financial Officer
John Edward SULLIVAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2121

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
H. Res. 995 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

February 13, 2024. 

Resolved, That Mr. Green of Tennessee, Mr. McCaul, 

Mr. Biggs, Mr. Higgins of Lousiana, Mr. Cline, Mr. Guest, 

Mr. Garbarino, Ms. Greene of Georgia, Mr. Pfluger, Ms. 

Hageman, and Ms. Lee of Florida, are appointed managers 

to conduct the impeachment trial against Alejandro Nicholas 

Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, that a message 

be sent to the Senate to inform the Senate of these appointments, and that the managers so appointed may, in connection with the preparation and the conduct of the trial, exhibit 

the articles of impeachment to the Senate and take all other 

actions necessary, which may include the following: 

(1) Employing legal, clerical, and other necessary 

assistants and incurring such other expenses as may be 

necessary, to be paid from amounts available to the 

Committee on Homeland Security under applicable expense resolutions or from the applicable accounts of the 

House of Representatives. 
2 

•HRES 995 EH 

(2) Sending for persons and papers, and filing with 

the Secretary of the Senate, on the part of the House 

of Representatives, any pleadings, in conjunction with or 

subsequent to, the exhibition of the articles of impeachment that the managers consider necessary. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

Augus t 25, 2021

No. 04- 21-00031- CV

IN TH E INTEREST OF C.C., A CHILD

F rom th e 45th Judicial District Court
, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019- PA -01368 Honorable Martha Tanner , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Thi s is an appeal of an order terminating appellant’s parental rights. On July 28, 2021, we issued an opinion and judgment affirming the trial court’s order, and on August 16, 2021, we denied appellant’s pro se motion for rehearing. Accordingly, the current deadline for appellant to file a petition for review in the Supreme Court of Texas is Sept ember 30, 2021. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 53.7 (petition for review is due within 45 days of “the date of the court of appeals’ last ruling

on a ll timely filed motions for rehearing or en banc reconsideration”).

O n August 19, 2021, appellant’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw. The only reason stated in counsel’s motion is that appellant asked him to withdraw. While appellant’s pro se motion for rehearing confirms she asked appointed counsel to withdraw, the only reason stated is that coun sel “did not request oral argument” and “was negligent in communication with me,” with no further details.
The Supreme Court of Texas has held that appointed counsel’s duty to his client in a parental termination appeal is not complete until the filing of a petition for review in that court. In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). “Once appointed by the trial court, counsel should be permitted to withdraw only for good cause .

. . . Mere dissatisfaction of counsel or client with each other is not good c ause.” Id.

It ap pears from the limited information we have that counsel and appellant are merely dissatisfied with each other. Because appellant has a right to appointed counsel through the filing of a petition for review, allowing counsel to withdraw wou ld require an abatement of this appeal and a remand to the trial court for appointment of new counsel. See id. at 27

– 28. However, because appellant’s petition for review deadline is imminent, we conclude such an abatement would “result in foreseeable preju dice to the client.” See id. at 27; see also City of San Antonio v. Hartman , 201 S.W.3d 667, 669

– 70 (Tex. 2006) (analyzing whether petition for review was timely filed so as to invoke supreme court’s jurisdiction). We therefore DENY counsel’s motion to wit hdraw.It is so ORDERED on August 25, 2021.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: /s/ Michael A. Cruz

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Keith Bechurn Taylor, Appellant

No. 06-23-00233-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 124th District Court of 

Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 49011-

B). Panel consists of Chief Justice Stevens 

and Justices van Cleef and Rambin. 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

Rambin. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the bill of 

costs and judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the bill of costs by striking the 

following costs totaling $1,250.00: (1) Attorney Fee - $425.00, (2) DC-Time Payment Fee -

$25.00, and (3) Fine - $800.00. We also modify the trial court’s judgment as follows: 

(1) “Reimbursement Fees: $850.00” changed to “Reimbursement Fees: $425.00,” (2) “Fines: 

$850.00” changed to “Fines: $0.00,” and (3) “Plea to Motion to Adjudicate: TRUE” changed to 

“Plea to Motion to Adjudicate: NOT TRUE TO ALLEGATION 1; TRUE TO 

ALLEGATION 2.” As modified, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Keith Bechurn Taylor, has adequately indicated his inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 5, 2024

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	

EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Final Rule

Data Requirements Rule for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Primary National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

RIN 2060-AR19

General Comments

1. Reviewer recommends providing the marginal benefits and costs to choosing the 2,000 

tpy (both inside and outside the 1m population area) over the other options provided 

within the proposed rule. Specifically, provide the cost per ton of each option, including 

1,000 tpy/2,000 tpy; 2,000 tpy/5,000 tpy; 3,000 tpy (both within and outside the 1m 

population area); 3,000 tpy/10,000 tpy; and 5,000 tpy (both within and outside the 1m 

population area).

2. Reviewer recommends clarifying why a preliminary list of source areas is required to be 

submitted instead of allowing states to provide a preliminary list of source areas if the 

state believes that would ensure that they met the required deadlines, especially since 

EPA states they are consulting with air agencies regarding the source areas that the final 

rule will characterize. 

3. Reviewer recommends clarifying federally enforceable requirements that limit source 

emissions to less than 2,000 tpy.

4. Reviewer recommends clarifying how compounding multiple sources for modeling is 

treated to ensure that an overly conservative model is not developed.

5. Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification whether the use of dispersion 

modeling is appropriate for attainment or nonattainment designations.

Specific Comments

1. Page 7. Reviewer recommends modifying the sentence below to more strongly convey

that the approach shall not be used for other NAAQS pollutants.

a. “. . . EPA believes that the approach set forth in this rule directing air agencies to 

gather additional data to characterize ambient air in the vicinity of larger SO2 

sources is uniquely suited for implementation of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and the 

Agency does not currently anticipate it to be used for other NAAQS pollutants.” 

2. Page 22-23. Reviewer recommends modifying the two sentences that start with 

“Likewise here, the EPA is not yet . . .” to state:

a. “Likewise here, the EPA is not yet taking any action to apply modeling regarding 

any decision of whether an area is or is not meeting the NAAQS. In any event, 

we note that . . .” 

3. Page 65-67. Reviewer recommends clarifying EPA’s response to comments on EPA’s 

legal authority to review modeling procedures that could affect compliance with 

regulatory requirements. Also, please discuss, if appropriate, whether any commitments 

or “presumptive acceptance” based on a reasonable time-frame that would allow states to 

comply with EPA regulations should be included.
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	

EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Typographical Comments

1. Reviewer recommends removing “or not” whenever “whether or not” is stated within the 

document.
# Official Journal L 127I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 127I |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6322 April 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 127I

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6322 April 2020

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2020/555 of 22 April 2020 amending its Rules of Procedure | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2020/555 of 22 April 2020 amending its Rules of Procedure

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 2011

- NM

- 113

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
Cedric J. JENKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-68

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 22, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-8000

In Re: EMMETT MADISON GRAHAM, JR.,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(No. 2:05-cv-00089-REM)

Submitted: March 22, 2007 Decided: March 29, 2007

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emmett Madison Graham, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Emmett Madison Graham, Jr., petitions for a writ of

mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on

his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents

of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). He seeks

an order from this court directing the district court to act. We

find there has been no undue delay in the district court.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

and grant Graham’s motion to amend his petition, we deny the

mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED