alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2     In connection with the Annual Report of P.F. Chang’s on Form 10-K for the year endedJanuary 1, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I Kristina K. Cashman, Chief Financial Officer of P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc. (the“Registrant”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and  2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.          /s/ KRISTINA K. CASHMAN   *Chief Financial Officer*  February 15, 2006    
65
tiFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

s 

&moh4n GLIIERAL 

rmbrury lT, 1999 

Hononblo L. A. Woodr 

Stat.0 Buprrintomlont 

Department ot,fdu8ation 

Ovirrule4 bT o-SlB3 

Dear air: Oplnlon NO. o-Las 

bo reo0mDiandml t 

lleptmer 14, 1 

ViRiOM in th4 

than mandatory? 

l dvi80 th a t wo h a r e eanrully 

Bouae Bill 133, and in our 

, and thr prQrlrioIM or 

d #hall be on 2110 rlth 

l uah l pplloatlon before woh date of each year rhall 

not be l llglbla for aid for the ourrant Joar.8 
Who r e 8mta tok 1 0 lfflmatlr* It 4.0~ 110; aoaeooarll 

irplr that the mo&o or tluo rontlond in it lo rxoluoivo, and dat 

the set p~ov16ed for, Lr dono at 8 Urronnt tlm8 or In a Ufforent 

mnur, will at bar* offoot. Lluoh lo the lltoml lmplleatlon, It 

Thlo rulo lo uinouuord uul u hola in th* ea.08 of Ruooell 

To%. 8581 51ty or Otr P do va. mlmoy, 145 s.w: Sllr 

1ts.S.W. 666b Y9rrio Pnoo Btiak Oo. To, Eawkb.8, 

in tho 

6tateaa 

#.0 or Burtan vo. x00ulra;s 8.R. (6d) 816, 1t lo 

: 

z 

4008 net clopmd clpon it. ioar, bat 

1'~ m the la atdon of tho Lqgiolaturo to bo aml ortaiao4 tram a oonala~ntlon or tho atlro 

Fh.rertoi., dth thlo rlmw ln rind ua ho14 that the’ 

ahtut lo Urratov to the *tent t&t ff the a&leation ti ,tate 

thm Offloo Of tha St&O Buporlntandont barore oubotantialio % lo 

40~1 'mn the ~lotdbutlon of the irrnd than ho would br ut libdrty 

to OOMlbr the l p 

E 

lloatlon tiled Itier ‘Ootobor 1 but ha would n6t 

bo porslttoU to tie l y the 6irtributlon o? tha ?un&, aor to dthholl 

the ronoy to take oar0 o,? late till but thaw would be a xksunable l onotl%etlon Ot the timr of 7 f 8; 

llng DO a8 not to 8olar o 

a 

bar 

#oh001 U8trloto ln roodring tholr money, and if an applloatlo lo 

*Ilad in-t&w 80 u not to prorent an&w dalq aa In tin0 for thopropor dlotrlbutlon 8f the toad in tho ordlna~~oouro~ of buslnuo, 

then tha illi 

after OOtOb8r "p, 

of tha l pplloatlon would not be too late if filed 

and suoh tllhg roti& #till bo in oonfomlty rlth 

the sot.
Jimmy Fitzgerald HAMILTON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Chad CHRONISTER, Sheriff of Hillsborough County, Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-2137

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 10.3
 FORM OF 2010 TIME-VESTED
RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD
  
 
 Company Company Stock Plan
 Committee
 Grant  Restricted Shares Grant Date
 Vesting Restrictions
 Vesting Date




---



##### 



Dividends
   Power of Attorney
  2




---



##### 



Book Entry Form; Delivery of Shares
 Rights as a Stockholder
 Transfer Restrictions
 Fractional Shares
 Adjustments
 Notices
 Applicable Withholding Taxes
 Applicable Withholding Taxes
   3




---



##### 



Applicable Securities Laws
 Acceptance of Restricted Shares
 Compliance with Section 409A of the Code
  4




---



##### 



HORIZON LINES, INC.By:Its:Agreed and Accepted:[Name of Grant Recipient][Date]
  5
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 21 

Establishing deadlines for the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library 

to approve or deny the statue of the Reverend William Franklin ‘‘Billy’’ 

Graham, Jr., for placement in the National Statuary Hall. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2021 

Mr. TILLIS submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Establishing deadlines for the Joint Committee of Congress 

on the Library to approve or deny the statue of the 

Reverend William Franklin ‘‘Billy’’ Graham, Jr., for 

placement in the National Statuary Hall. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That the Joint Committee of Congress on the 

3 Library shall approve or deny— 

4 (1) the full-sized clay model and pedestal design 

5 of a statue of the Reverend William Franklin 

6 ‘‘Billy’’ Graham, Jr., not later than 30 days after 

7 the State of North Carolina submits to the Architect 

8 of the Capitol photographs of the model from all 4 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SCON 21 IS 

1 sides, the dimensions of the statue and pedestal, en2 gineering drawings of the pedestal, the anticipated 

3 weight of the completed statue and pedestal, and the 

4 text of any proposed inscriptions; and 

5 (2) the completed statue of the Reverend Wil6 liam Franklin ‘‘Billy’’ Graham, Jr., not later than 

7 30 days after the State of North Carolina submits 

8 to the Architect of the Capitol photographs of the 

9 completed statue and pedestal from all 4 sides, the 

10 dimensions of the statue and pedestal, the final 

11 weight of the statue and pedestal, and the text of 

12 any inscriptions. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Case 3:05-cv-02152-P Document 23 Filed 05/15/06 Page 1 of 14 PageID 268
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02152-P Document 23 Filed 05/15/06 Page 2 of 14 PageID 269
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02152-P Document 23 Filed 05/15/06 Page 3 of 14 PageID 270
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02152-P Document 23 Filed 05/15/06 Page 4 of 14 PageID 271
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02152-P Document 23 Filed 05/15/06 Page 5 of 14 PageID 272
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02152-P Document 23 Filed 05/15/06 Page 6 of 14 PageID 273
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02152-P Document 23 Filed 05/15/06 Page 7 of 14 PageID 274
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02152-P Document 23 Filed 05/15/06 Page 8 of 14 PageID 275
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02152-P Document 23 Filed 05/15/06 Page 9 of 14 PageID 276
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02152-P Document 23 Filed 05/15/06 Page 10 of 14 PageID 277
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02152-P Document 23 Filed 05/15/06 Page 11 of 14 PageID 278
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02152-P Document 23 Filed 05/15/06 Page 12 of 14 PageID 279
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02152-P Document 23 Filed 05/15/06 Page 13 of 14 PageID 280
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02152-P Document 23 Filed 05/15/06 Page 14 of 14 PageID 281
Case 5:05-cr-00083-C Document 98 Filed 04/06/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID 352
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSELYN LISETH LEMUS-QUINTEROS, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-71777 

Agency No. A205-639-856 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 20, 2021**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Joselyn Liseth Lemus-Quinteros, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying 

her motion to reopen and terminate removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is 

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 26 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-71777 

motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 

575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for 

review. 

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Lemus-Quinteros’s 

motion to reopen and terminate removal proceedings where her challenge to the 

agency’s jurisdiction under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), is

foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (“the lack

of time, date, and place in the NTA sent to [petitioner] did not deprive the

immigration court of jurisdiction over her case”).

In light of this disposition, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of 

sua sponte reopening, where Lemus-Quinteros has not raised a legal or 

constitutional error. See Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588 (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to 

review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of 

reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Lemus-Quinteros’s contentions concerning 

timeliness, changed circumstances, and prima facie eligibility because she did not 

raise them before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 

2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
3 19-71777 

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is otherwise 

denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
STATE of Louisiana v. Aaron Orlando RICHARDS

NO. 2018-KO-1036

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 2019

Denied.

GENOVESE, J., recused.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research; Special Grants Review Committee.                    

*Date:*                         February 25-26, 2025.                    

*Time:*                         9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Address:*                         National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

*Meeting Format:*                         Virtual Meeting.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Aiwu Cheng, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-4859, email:                         *chengai@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.121, Oral Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 10, 2025.

Bruce A. George,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2025-00844 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification




Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Tintic Gold Mining Company (the “Company”) certifies that:




1.           The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and




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







Date:  August 12, 2010
By: /s/ Ding LiepingDing Lieping, Chief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer
Case 3:05-cv-02105-P Document 74 Filed 02/05/07 Page 1 of 6 PageID 995
Case 3:05-cv-02105-P Document 74 Filed 02/05/07 Page 2 of 6 PageID 996
Case 3:05-cv-02105-P Document 74 Filed 02/05/07 Page 3 of 6 PageID 997
Case 3:05-cv-02105-P Document 74 Filed 02/05/07 Page 4 of 6 PageID 998
Case 3:05-cv-02105-P Document 74 Filed 02/05/07 Page 5 of 6 PageID 999
Case 3:05-cv-02105-P Document 74 Filed 02/05/07 Page 6 of 6 PageID 1000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                         140,462
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  264,163
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,362,777
<PP&E>                                       1,973,030
<DEPRECIATION>                                 782,519
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,274,931
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,691,837
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,421,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,123,108)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,274,931
<SALES>                                      3,370,325
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,370,325
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,336,821
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,986
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,986
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (989,482)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    48,478
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,037,960)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,037,960)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.050)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.050)
        

</TABLE>
1 UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA
S T A N LE Y A
. S LU P K O W S K I, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civ il A c tio n N o. 09 -1 39 4 ( RWR) ) GENERAL

COUNSEL , DEPARTMENT ) OF T HE NAV Y, e t al

. , ) ) De fe nd ants . )

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION F or the re a so ns state d b e low , th e Court wi ll d ism iss the pla int if

f’ s pro s ecivil complaint. It a pp e ars that pl a int if

f s e e ks an O rd e r t o e ff

e c t th e tr ans fe r o f r e c or ds pe rt a ini ngto h is mil ita ry se rv ic e , v e te ra

ns be ne fi ts, so c ia l se c ur ity be ne fi ts, and

pr oc e e din g s in

oth e r c ourt s in other jurisdictions “to the District of Columbia for P ERMANENT CUSTODY .” Com pl. at 2 (e mph a sis in o ri g ina l) . Pl a int if f d oe s n ot a

rt ic ulate c le arl y

the purp os e of

the tr ans fe r o f r e c or ds
. The Court has r eviewe d plaintiff’s complaint, kee ping in mind that complaints filed by pro s elitigants ar e held to less string ent standar ds than those applied to for mal pleading s draf

ted by lawyers. See H

aines v. Kerne r , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Eve n pro s elitigants, howe ver, must comply

with the Fe dera l Rules of Civil Procedur e. Jarrell v. Tisch , 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8( a) of the Fe dera l Rules of Civil Procedur e re quires that a c omplaint contain a shor

t and plain statement of the g rounds upon which the c ourt’s jurisdiction depends, a short and plain stateme nt of the cla im showing that the ple ader is entitled to relief, a

nd a dema

nd for judg ment for the r elief the pleade r see ks. Fe d. R. Civ. P . 8(a) . The purpose of the minimum2

sta nd ard of Rul e 8 is to g ive fa ir

no tic e to t

he de fe nd ants of

the c la im b e inga sse rt e d, su ff ic ie nt t o prepa re a responsive a

nswer, to pr epar e an a dequate defe nse and to de termine whe ther the doctrine of re

s ju dic ata applies. Brown v. Califano , 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D .D.C. 1977). As draf ted, the Court conc ludes that the complaint does not comply with Rule 8(a), a

nd for this rea son, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. An final Or der a ccompa

nies this Memorandum Opinion.
Signed this 8 day

of September , 2009. th / s / RI CHARD W. R OB ERTS Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 12, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00481

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.M. JR., A CHILD,

From the 2 25th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019PA00115

Honorable H. Paul Canales , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating the appellant’s parental rights which must be disposed of by this court within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. T EX

. R.

J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2. The reporter’s record was due to be filed on October 5, 2020. On October 9, 2020, the court reporter filed a notification of late record stating she anticipat es the record will be completed by October 1 9 , 2020. It is ORDERED that the reporter’s record must be filed in this appeal no later than October 1 9 , 2020. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3(c). FURTHER REQUESTS FOR

EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE DISFAVORED.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 12th day of October, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Navidec  Financial  Service,  Inc. on
Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ended  September  30,  2007,  as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John R.
McKowen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that:

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

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



Date: November 14, 2007



By:      /s/ John R. McKowen
         ----------------------------------
         John R. McKowen
         Chief Executive Officer, principal accounting officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129908 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129908 

 COA: 255254 

Berrien CC: 03-402680-FC 

KEITH LAMAR DAVIS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 18, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0524 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 31, 2006 

Clerk
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 15 (Friday, January 24, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 8124]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01681]

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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[DOCKET NO. 25-04]

China United Lines, Ltd., Complainant v. Amazon.com Services LLC; 
Amazon Logistics Inc.; and Beijing Century Joyo Courier Service Co., 
Ltd., Respondents; Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment

Served: January 17, 2025.
    Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal 
Maritime Commission (the ``Commission'') by China United Lines, Ltd. 
(the ``Complainant'') against Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon Logistics 
Inc., and Beijing Century Joyo Courier Service Co., Ltd. (the 
``Respondents''). Complainant states that the Commission has subject 
matter jurisdiction over the complaint pursuant to the Shipping Act of 
1984, as amended, 46 U.S.C. 40101 et seq., and personal jurisdiction 
over Respondents as non-vessel-operating common carriers, as defined in 
46 U.S.C. 40102, and as persons, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 41102.
    Complainant is a foreign entity existing under the laws of the 
People's Republic of China with its principal place of business located 
in Shanghai, China.
    Complainant identifies Respondent Amazon.com Services LLC as a 
limited liability company existing under the laws of the State of 
Delaware with a business address in Seattle, Washington.
    Complainant identifies Respondent Amazon Logistics Inc. as an 
entity existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its 
principal place of business located in Seattle, Washington.
    Complainant identifies Respondent Beijing Century Joyo Courier 
Service Co., Ltd. as a foreign entity existing under the laws of the 
People's Republic of China with an address located in Beijing, China.
    Complainant alleges that Respondents violated 46 U.S.C. 41102(a) 
and (c) and 41104(a)(1) and (a)(2). Complainant alleges these 
violations arose from Respondents' attempt to obtain ocean 
transportation at less than the applicable rates or charges by 
attempting to revise the reason for their termination of their service 
contract with Complainant to avoid paying liquidated damages, and other 
acts or omissions by Respondents.
    An answer to the complaint must be filed with the Commission within 
25 days after the date of service.
    The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's 
electronic Reading Room at https://www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/proceeding/25-04/. This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of 
Administrative Law Judges. The initial decision of the presiding judge 
shall be issued by January 20, 2026, and the final decision of the 
Commission shall be issued by August 3, 2026.

David Eng,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-01681 Filed 1-23-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```