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

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 11 (Friday, January 17, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 5880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01235]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-12548-01-R8]

Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Order on Petition for 
Objection to State Operating Permit for Suncor Energy (U.S.A.), Inc., 
Commerce City Refinery Plant 1 (West) & Plant 3 (Asphalt Unit)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final order on petition.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed 
an order dated December 30, 2024, granting in part and denying in part 
a petition dated September 6, 2024, from the Center for Biological 
Diversity and Sierra Club. The petition requested that the EPA object 
to the renewal of a Clean Air Act (CAA) operating permit issued by the 
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) to Suncor 
Energy (U.S.A.), Inc. for its Commerce City Refinery, Plant 1 (West) & 
Plant 3 (Asphalt Unit) located in Adams County, Colorado.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Merkel, Environmental Protection 
Agency, EPA Region 8, telephone number: (406) 457-5042, email address: 
[email protected]; or Donald Law, EPA Region 8, telephone number: 
(303) 312-7015, email address: [email protected]. The final order and 
petition are available electronically at: https://www.epa.gov/title-v-operating-permits/title-v-petition-database.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA received a petition from the Center 
for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club dated September 6, 2024, 
requesting that the EPA object to the issuance of operating permit no. 
96OPAD120, issued by CDPHE to Suncor Energy (U.S.A.), Inc., Commerce 
City Refinery, Plant 1 (West) & Plant 3 (Asphalt Unit) in Adams County, 
Colorado. On December 30, 2024, the EPA Administrator issued an order 
granting in part and denying in part the petition. The order itself 
explains the basis for the EPA's decision.
    Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a petitioner 
may request judicial review of those portions of an order that deny 
issues in a petition. Any petition for review shall be filed in the 
United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit no later 
than March 18, 2025.

KC Becker,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2025-01235 Filed 1-16-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
III 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 41 

Authorizing the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate to conduct 

quarterly blood donation drives during the 119th Congress. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 27, 2025 

Mr. MCCONNELL (for himself and Mr. PADILLA) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the 

Senate to conduct quarterly blood donation drives during 

the 119th Congress. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. QUARTERLY SENATE BLOOD DONATION 

3 DRIVES. 

4 (a) AUTHORIZATION.— 

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—During the 119th Congress, 

6 the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate 

7 (referred to in this resolution as the ‘‘Sergeant at 

8 Arms’’) is authorized to conduct a blood donation 

9 drive once every quarter of a calendar year, in ac10 cordance with paragraphs (2) and (3). 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 41 ATS 

1 (2) DATE SELECTION.—The Sergeant at Arms 

2 shall, in consultation with the Committee on Rules 

3 and Administration of the Senate, select the date for 

4 each drive conducted under paragraph (1). 

5 (3) SELECTION OF LOCATIONS AND

6 PARTNERING BLOOD DONATION ORGANIZATIONS.— 

7 (A) IN GENERAL.—The Sergeant at Arms 

8 shall identify and, with the approval of the 

9 Committee on Rules and Administration of the 

10 Senate, select a location and a partnering blood 

11 donation organization for each drive conducted 

12 under paragraph (1). 

13 (B) MEMBER REQUESTS.—In identifying 

14 appropriate partnering blood donation organiza15 tions under subparagraph (A), the Sergeant at 

16 Arms may consider a request from a Senator 

17 for a specific blood donation organization. 

18 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.—Physical preparations for 

19 the conduct of, and the implementation of, each drive au20 thorized under subsection (a)(1) shall be carried out in 

21 accordance with such conditions as the Sergeant at Arms, 

22 in consultation with the Committee on Rules and Adminis23 tration of the Senate, may prescribe. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Nathan Jahad WRIGHT, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE and Jade Ashley Yates, Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-3881

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

J. Erik Fyrwald, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Nalco Holding Company (‘‘Nalco’’) and Bradley J. Bell, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Nalco, in conjunction with the filing of Nalco’s 10-Q financial report (the ‘‘Report’’) with the Securities and Exchange Commission, covering the calendar quarter ending March 31, 2008, hereby certify as follows:

| |    |                                                                                            
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | a. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

| |    |                                                                                                                                      
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | b. | The information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations for Nalco.

/s/ J. ERIK FYRWALDJ. Erik Fyrwald
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Date: May 2, 2008/s/ BRADLEY J. BELLBradley J. Bell
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
Date: May 2, 2008


---
---

Exhibit 13.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 on Form 20-F of Battle Mountain Gold Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended October 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1. The annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 2. The information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: February 27, 2017 “Ian Brown”Ian Brown
    Chief Financial Officer


---
TERRENCE LEON HOLMES 

ATTORNEY AT LAW 

455 Milam Street 

Beaumont, Texas 77701-4914 

(409) 832-6041 

October 5, 2015 

CERTIFIED MAIL: 70142120000098567286 

TDCJ# 1967053 

EARL W. WILMORE, JR. 

3295 FM 3514 

Gist State Jail 

Beaumont, TX 77705 

RE: APPEAL NO. 01-15-00027-CR (TRIAL NO. 13-17241) 

Dear EARL WILMORE, JR., 

After diligently reviewing the record under this cause number and researching the law, I 

found no reversible error committed by the trial court and no arguable ground of error. It is 

counsel's opinion that this appeal is without merit. Under Ander's v. California, an appellate 

attorney can file a brief of this kind after reviewing the record and researching the law and 

concludes that there is no arguable ground of error when counsel may file such a brief. 

However, you have the right to review the record and file a pro se brief raising any 

ground or error or complaint, which you may desire that the record supports. Should you wish to 

exercise your right to review the appellate record in preparing to file a response to the Anders 

brief, you should immediately file a motion for pro se access to the appellate record with the 

First Court of Appeals, 301 Fannin Street, Houston, TX 77002. Enclosed please find a Pro Se 

Motion for Access to Appellate Record, lacking only your signature and the date. In order to 

effectuate your right to review the appellate record pro se, should you choose to invoke it, you 

must sign and date the motion and send it on to the First Court of Appeals, within ten (10) days 

of the date of this letter. 

ACCEPTED

01-15-00027-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

10/5/2015 5:12:49 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 10/5/2015 5:12:49 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
After filing a pro se brief and after the Court of Appeals renders a judgment and opinion, 

you have a right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas 

Rules of Appellant Procedure. A copy of the Court of Appeals judgment and opinion will be 

mailed to your last known address and you will have only 30 days in which to file a pro se 

petition for discretionary review in the Court of Appeals. Tex. R, App. P. 68.2. You must timely 

inform me of any change in the address at which you or currently living or any change in your 

current prison unit, so that, you don’t lose the opportunity to file a pro se petition for 

discretionary review. 

Furthermore, if you have any questions about this cause, please contact me in writing. 

Respectfully, 

/s/Terrence Leon Holmes 

Terrence Leon Holmes 

Attorney at Law 

TLH/mbj 

Enclosure
Exhibit 13.2 

**Certification**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, UnitedStates Code), the undersigned officer of ING Groep N.V., a public limited company incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the “Report”) of the Company fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: March 18, 2013 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document. 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ING Groep N.V. and will be retained by INGGroep N.V. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissions or its staff upon request.
Michael J. BOUNDS, Appellant v. Suzanne Marie BENSON, Individually, and Suzanne Marie Benson, as Trustee of the Suzanne Marie Benson Revocable Trust, Appellee

NO. 2017-CA-00460-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

December 11, 2018 Rehearing Denied January 31, 2019

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: THOMAS J. SUSZEK, GEOFFREY F. CALDERARO

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: J. CAL MAYO, JR., KATE M. EMBRY

BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., WILSON, WESTBROOKS AND TINDELL, JJ., ROBERTS AND GOWAN, S.JJ.1

1

Six judges of this Court recused themselves from participation in this case. Because a quorum of six judges is required to reach a decision, this Court asked the Chief Justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court to appoint two special judges to participate in the decision of this appeal pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 9-1-105(1) (Rev. 2014). By order entered on July 27, 2018, the Chief Justice appointed Senior Status Judge Larry E. Roberts and Senior Status Judge William E. Gowan to serve as special judges for this case, including any motion for rehearing.

PER CURIAM:

*483¶ 1. The judgment of the Lafayette County Chancery Court is affirmed by an evenly divided Court. *See**Wise v. Valley Bank* , 861 So.2d 1029, 1033 (¶ 10) (Miss. 2003) ("We hold that when this Court is evenly divided, the order or judgment of the court from which the appeal is taken must be affirmed.").

¶ 2. **AFFIRMED.**

GRIFFIS, P.J., WILSON, WESTBROOKS AND TINDELL, JJ., ROBERTS AND GOWAN, S.JJ., CONCUR. LEE, C.J., IRVING, P.J., BARNES, CARLTON, FAIR AND GREENLEE, JJ., NOT PARTICIPATING.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 21, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7229-7230]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01309]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 12636]

Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Being 
Imported for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Van Gogh: The Roulin Family 
Portraits'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad 
pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for 
temporary display in the exhibition ``Van Gogh: The Roulin Family 
Portraits'' at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, in Boston, 
Massachusetts, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to 
be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their 
temporary exhibition or display within the United States as 
aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: [email protected]). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

[[Page 7230]]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 
2021.

Nicole L. Elkon,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2025-01309 Filed 1-17-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 39 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 39

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      January 14, 2025.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is hereby, ranked on the 
following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Appropriations: Ms. Maloy (to rank immediately after Mr. 
Strong).
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
# C_2017402EN.01001101.xml

| 27.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 21 August 2017 — Lintner Györgyné v UniCredit Bank Hungary

(Case C-511/17)

(2017/C 402/12)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lintner Györgyné

Applicant:

Defendant: UniCredit Bank Hungary

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 6(1) of the Unfair Terms Directive (1) — having regard also to the national legislation requiring legal representation — be interpreted as meaning that it is necessary to examine each of the clauses of a contract individually in the light of whether it may be regarded as unfair, irrespective of whether an examination of all the terms of the contract is actually necessary in order to rule on the claim made in the action? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 6(1) of the Unfair Terms Directive (1) — having regard also to the national legislation requiring legal representation — be interpreted as meaning that it is necessary to examine each of the clauses of a contract individually in the light of whether it may be regarded as unfair, irrespective of whether an examination of all the terms of the contract is actually necessary in order to rule on the claim made in the action?

1

| 2. | If not, is it necessary, contrary to the suggestion in question 1, to interpret Article 6(1) of the Unfair Terms Directive as meaning that, in order to find that the clause on which the claim is based is unfair, all the other terms of the contract must also be examined? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If not, is it necessary, contrary to the suggestion in question 1, to interpret Article 6(1) of the Unfair Terms Directive as meaning that, in order to find that the clause on which the claim is based is unfair, all the other terms of the contract must also be examined?

| 3. | If the answer to question 2 is affirmative, does that mean that it is in order to be able to establish that the clause at issue is unfair that it is necessary to examine the entire contract, that is to say that it is not necessary to examine each part of the contract individually for unfairness, independently of the clause disputed in the action? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to question 2 is affirmative, does that mean that it is in order to be able to establish that the clause at issue is unfair that it is necessary to examine the entire contract, that is to say that it is not necessary to examine each part of the contract individually for unfairness, independently of the clause disputed in the action?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

1

---
Ann Marie BENEDETTO a/k/a Annmarie Benedetto, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE, on Behalf OF the HOLDERS OF the HARBORVIEW MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST MORTGAGE LOAN PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-12, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1425

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 28, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

PHILIP KEITH LeMASURIER, §

§

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:05-CV-472-Y

§

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, §

T.D.C.J., Correctional § 

Institutions Division, §

Respondent. § 

 ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

In this action brought by petitioner Philip Keith LeMasurier

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Court has made an independent review of

the following matters in the above-styled and numbered cause:

1. The pleadings and record;

2. The proposed findings, conclusions, and

recommendation of the United States magistrate

judge filed on February 9, 2006; and

3. The petitioner's written objections to the proposed

findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United

States magistrate judge filed on February 27, 2006.

4. The respondent’s written objections to the proposed

findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United

States magistrate judge filed on March 1, 2006.

The Court, after de novo review, concludes that the

Petitioner’s objections must be overruled, that the Respondent’s

objections must be sustained, and that the magistrate judge’s

findings and conclusions should be adopted, except to the extent

that petitioner LeMasurier’s ineffective assistance claims on the

basis that counsel failed to prepare for trial and failed to

present evidence, should be dismissed with prejudice as unexhausted

and barred by procedural default. 

 Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of

the magistrate judge are ADOPTED, except as modified herein. 

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00472-Y Document 31 Filed 04/10/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 166
2

Petitioner Le Masurier’s grounds for relief one, two, three,

four, six, seven, nine, ten, and his ineffective assistance claims

on the basis that counsel failed to prepare for trial and failed to

present evidence, are barred from review by this Court on the basis

of procedural default, and therefore DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Petitioner LeMasurier’s grounds for relief five, eight, and

the remaining ineffective assistance claims asserted as ground

eleven, are DENIED. 

SIGNED April 10, 2006.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00472-Y Document 31 Filed 04/10/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 167
exv10w56



 




EXHIBIT 10.56




AMENDMENT TO




EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AND SEVERANCE AGREEMENT




     
This amendment to the Executive Employment and
Severance Agreement (the “Agreement”) that was made
effective as of December 5, 2002, by and between Invitrogen
Corporation (“Company”) and James R. Glynn
(“Executive”) is entered into by such parties as of
June 27, 2003. All capitalized terms used herein shall have
the meaning ascribed thereto in the Agreement.




RECITALS


     
A. Executive has been employed by the
Company since December 5, 2002, pursuant to the Agreement,
and, except for this amendment, Executive’s employment
would terminate on June 29, 2003.



     
B. The parties wish to extend
Executive’s employment under the Agreement until July 31,
2003.



     
The parties agree as follows:




		
	 	     
    1. A Triggering Event pursuant to Section
    9.2(b) of the Agreement shall have occurred on June 29,
    2003, thereby entitling the Executive to receive the Consulting
    and Severance Package.
    
	 
	 	     
    2. Section 12 of the Agreement is hereby
    revised to read in its entirety as follows:
    





		
	 	     
    12. Date of Termination. “Date of
    Termination” means the first to occur of:
    





		
	 	     
    12.1 July 31, 2003; or
    
	 
	 	     
    12.2 the date of receipt of the Notice of
    Termination (i.e., termination for Good Reason) or any
    later date specified therein, as the case may be; or
    
	 
	 	     
    12.3 Executive’s death; or
    
	 
	 	     
    12.3 the effective date of Executive’s
    Disability.
    








 




		
	 	     
    2.     All other
    provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and
    effect.
    





	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
    
    Dated:
    

    	 	
    6/21/03

    	 	/s/ JAMES R. GLYNN

JAMES R. GLYNN
	 
	
    
    Dated:
    

    	 	
    6/27/03

    	 	/s/ LEWIS J. RUNCHEY

INVITROGEN CORPORATION
Lewis J. Runchey
Vice President, Human Resources
Jefrey ROSARIO, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-3965

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 22, 2019

Jefrey Rosario, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

Wetherell, Ray, and Winsor, JJ., concur.