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

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

Postal ServiceTM.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:* July 1, 2021.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 16, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 707 to Competitive Product List.* Documents are available at *www.prc.gov,* Docket Nos. MC2021-103, CP2021-106.

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2021-14023 Filed 6-30-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 10.59

 

[Date]

 

To:                             [Executive]

 

Re:                             Change in Control Agreement — Notification of Extension

 

You are hereby notified that your current Change in Control Agreement, which was set to expire on December 31, 2014, has been extended to December 31, 2016.

 

Please retain a copy of this Notification of Extension with your important records.
#### Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A., Respondent, v Gerald A. Powell et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

In an action for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, defendants Gerald A. Powell and Elaine Powell appeal from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Berman, J.), entered February 16, 1984, which, *inter alia,*in granting their motion to fix the amount due and owing on plaintiff’s outstanding judgment against them, fixed the rate of interest at 9% per annum.

Order modified, by deleting therefrom the following “nine percent per annum (CPLR 5004) from September 30,1980”, and substituting therefor “six percent per annum from September 30,1980, until June 25,1981, and nine percent per annum after June 25, 1981 (CPLR 5004)”. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

CPLR 5004 now provides for interest at the rate of 9% per annum. However, this interest rate took effect on June 25,1981. “In actions in which interest is to be computed from a date prior to such effective date, interest shall be computed at the rate of six per centum per annum until such date and nine per centum per annum thereafter” (L 1981, ch 258, § 2). Therefore, Special Term was incorrect in computing the interest due plaintiff based on CPLR 5004 at a flat 9% rate from September 30, 1980.

We have examined appellants’ remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Gibbons and Bracken, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2



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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Minera Andes Inc. (the
Corporation), on Form 10-QSB for the nine month period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bonnie L. Kuhn, Chief Financial Officer of the
Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | 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 Corporation.
| | -- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  | MINERA ANDES INC.
|----------------------- |  | -----------------
|                        |  |                  
|Date: November 14, 2003 |  | By:              
|                        |  |                  
|                        |  |
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ No. 1D 18

- 253 4

_____________________________ E VA E LECTRIS C ANNIE a ka Ava Electris Cannie aka Eve Helen e Cannie , Petitioner ,

v.
S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

________________ _____________

Petition for Writ of Prohibition

— Original Jurisdiction

.

April 2, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. The petition for writ of prohibition is denied on the merits.
R OBERTS , K ELSEY , and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Eva Electris Cannie, pro se , Petitioner

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent

.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Loral Orion, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bernard L.
Schwartz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

     (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.

/s/ Bernard L. Schwartz
------------------------------------
Bernard L. Schwartz
Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2003

                                       36
Exhibit
32


**CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO**


**18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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








Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of the
registrant certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the registrant's Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 (the "Form 10-KSB")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-KSB,
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the registrant.





Date:
April 13, 2005





Amanasu
Environment Corporation





_____________________


Hideyuki
Shiraishi


President
and


Principal
Financial Officer
#### Floyd Sheldon, Respondent-Appellant, v KimberlyClark Corporation, Appellant-Respondent, et al., Defendants, and Schweitzer Division of Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, (1) plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Coppola, J.), dated May 22 1984, which denied his motion for leave to enter a default judgment and granted a cross motion to dismiss the action as against the Schweitzer Division of Kimberly-Clark Corporation, and (2) Kimberly-Clark Corporation appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the same court (Dachenhausen, J.), dated December 14, 1983, as denied its motion for a protective order, or, in the alternative, for an order of confidentiality in regard to information obtained by plaintiff in his discovery and inspection of its Ancram, New York plant.

Order dated May 22,1984 affirmed and order dated December 14, 1983 affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Since the unincorporated Schweitzer Division of defendant Kimberly-Clark Corporation is not a jural entity amenable to suit in its own right, its joinder herein was improper and its failure to answer the complaint cannot, therefore, give rise to a default in appearance *(cf. Provosty v Lydia E. Hall Hosp.,*91 AD2d 658, 659, *affd*59 NY2d 812; *Little Shoppe Around Corner v Carl,*80 Misc 2d 717). Defendant Kimberly-Clark Corporation, the legally cognizable corporate entity properly amenable to suit and answerable in damages, should plaintiff prevail, for the alleged wrongdoing attributed to the Schweitzer Division has, in fact, appeared and answered the complaint. There is, therefore, no default in appearance with respect to claims asserted against the Schweitzer Division. Accordingly, Special Term’s order denying leave to enter a default judgment and dismissing the action as to the Schweitzer Division of Kimberly-Clark Corporation must be affirmed.

*913Finally, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant Kimberly-Clark’s motion for a protective order, or, alternatively, for an order of confidentiality limiting the dissemination of any information obtained by plaintiff, should the protective order be denied. Kimberly-Clark Corporation’s showing of confidentiality consists of a brief, conclusory statement in an attorney’s affirmation which fails to establish the existence of proprietary processes necessitating the imposition of a confidentiality order. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Brown, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1999             DEC-25-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-28-1999             DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-26-1999             JUN-26-1999
<CASH>                                           1,209                   1,209
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,307                   1,307
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     37,566                  37,566
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,582                  42,582
<PP&E>                                          18,564                  18,564
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,793                   6,793
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  61,099                  61,099
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,573                  19,573
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            69                      69
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,946                  30,946
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    61,099                  61,099
<SALES>                                         28,272                  51,596
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,272                  51,596
<CGS>                                           14,529                  27,150
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,009                  21,870
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,346                   4,755
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 310                     558
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     78                 (2,737)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        33                 (1,191)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 45                 (1,546)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                        45                 (1,546)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01                  (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01                  (0.23)


</TABLE>
# C_2019172EN.01001001.xml

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU) Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-102/19)

(2019/C 172/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU) Arzneimittel GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 69 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) make exhaustive provision with respect to the permissible content of package leaflets for the medicinal products referred to in Article 14(1) or may other information within the meaning of Article 62 of Directive 2001/83/EC be included? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 69 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) make exhaustive provision with respect to the permissible content of package leaflets for the medicinal products referred to in Article 14(1) or may other information within the meaning of Article 62 of Directive 2001/83/EC be included?

| 2. | May dosage schedules for the medicinal products referred to in Article 14(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC constitute information which is useful to the patient within the meaning of Article 62 of Directive 2001/83/EC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May dosage schedules for the medicinal products referred to in Article 14(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC constitute information which is useful to the patient within the meaning of Article 62 of Directive 2001/83/EC?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), as amended by Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 (OJ 2012 L 299, p. 1).

---
# C_2019280EN.01002001.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 24 April 2019 — E. Sp. z o.o. Sp. k., having its seat in S. v Minister Finansów

(Case C-335/19)

(2019/C 280/27)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E. Sp. z o.o. Sp. k., having its seat in S.

Defendant: Minister Finansów

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) — and in particular Article 90(2) thereof — having regard to the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, permit the introduction into national law of a restriction on the ability to reduce the taxable amount in the event of partial or total non-payment by reason of the specific tax status of the debtor and the creditor? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) — and in particular Article 90(2) thereof — having regard to the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, permit the introduction into national law of a restriction on the ability to reduce the taxable amount in the event of partial or total non-payment by reason of the specific tax status of the debtor and the creditor?

| 2. | In particular, does EU law not preclude the introduction of a rule in national legislation which provides for the option of taking advantage of ‘bad debt relief’ only on condition that on the date on which the service or goods are supplied and on the day preceding the date on which the tax return adjustment is filed in order to benefit from this relief:






  — | the debtor is not subject to insolvency or liquidation proceedings? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

In particular, does EU law not preclude the introduction of a rule in national legislation which provides for the option of taking advantage of ‘bad debt relief’ only on condition that on the date on which the service or goods are supplied and on the day preceding the date on which the tax return adjustment is filed in order to benefit from this relief:

—

the debtor is not subject to insolvency or liquidation proceedings?

| — | the creditor and debtor are both registered as active VAT taxpayers? |
| --- | --- |

—

the creditor and debtor are both registered as active VAT taxpayers?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           9,105
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   57,980
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,389)
<INVENTORY>                                     43,374
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               112,668
<PP&E>                                          50,815
<DEPRECIATION>                                (30,715)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 382,733
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,743
<BONDS>                                        273,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,346
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   382,733
<SALES>                                        162,247
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               162,247
<CGS>                                          101,746
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  101,746
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                33,451
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,811
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,125
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,556
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,569
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,569
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Northeast Area
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        
                Northeast Area Cities

                    Washington, D.C.
                            Newark, Delaware
                            Boston, Massachusetts
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BHNRC)
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BARC)
                            Frederick, Maryland
                            Orono, Maine
                            Geneva, New York
                            Ithaca, New York
                            University Park, Pennsylvania
                            Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania
                            Kearneysville, West Virginia
                            Leetown, West Virginia
                            Burlington, Vermont


                    Civil Rights & EEO Policy StatementsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Docs Safety, Health and Environmental Training







Laboratory Safety Refresher Quizheadline bar


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### In the Matter of the Application of James W. Lamb, to have Cancelled Certain Taxes upon Real Estate.

(Argued June 16, 1890;

decided June *24,*1890.)

Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, made February 11, *7041889, which reversed an order of Special Term directing certain taxes on real property to he cancelled.

*Heotor M. Hitokmgs*for appellant.

*W. J. Foster*for respondents.

Agree to affirm ; no opinion.

All concur.

Order affirmed.