alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Sunburst Acquisitions III, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the
period ending February 28, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Jay Lutsky, Principal Executive Officer and Director of the
Company, 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 Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Jay Lutsky



 Jay Lutsky,

 Principal Executive Officer and Director

May 25, 2004
Clear All

        26 October 2022    

                    Navy Sails into Atlanta for Navy Week                  
                MILLINGTON, Tenn. (NNS) – The U.S. Navy is preparing to bring a Navy Week to Atlanta, Georgia, during the week of October 31 – November 6.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
PARTNERSHIP'S STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         376,976
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               376,976
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,863,973
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,929
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,834,367
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,863,973
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               660,803
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               507,899
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                152,904
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            152,904
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   152,904
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### In re James RIFFIN, Debtor, James Riffin, Debtor-Appellant, v. Baltimore County, MD; Maryland Department of the Environment, Defendants-Appellees, and Mark Jerome Friedman, Trustee.

No. 12-2422.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 29, 2013.

Decided: May 10, 2013.

James Riffin, Appellant Pro Se. Anne D’Arcy Byrnes Talley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Riffin appeals the district court’s orders: (1) dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court for failure to timely file an appellate brief, as required by Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8009, and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Riffin v. Baltimore County, MD,*No. 1:12-cv-00897ELH, 2012 WL 5406743 (D.Md. July 26, 2012; Nov. 2, 2012). We deny Riffin’s motion for sanctions and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Case 1:07-cv-05400-AKH     Document 6      Filed 09/05/2007     Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 4-2 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 7 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 7 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 7 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 3 of 3
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1783 

To provide for increased scrutiny with respect to pesticide residues of 

glyphosate, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2019 

Ms. DELAURO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for increased scrutiny with respect to pesticide 

residues of glyphosate, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Keep Food Safe from 

5 Glyphosate Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RESTORING PREVIOUS TOLERANCE FOR GLYPHO7 SATE ON OATS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator of the Envi9 ronmental Protection Agency, pursuant to section 408 of 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1783 IH

1 the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 

2 346a), shall establish a permanent tolerance for the use 

3 of glyphosate on oats not to exceed 0.1 parts per million. 

4 (b) GLYPHOSATE DEFINED.—In this section, the 

5 term ‘‘glyphosate’’ means glyphosate acid (CAS number 

6 1071–83–6) [N-phosphonomethyle) glycine], an herbicide 

7 belonging to the phosphono amino acid class of pesticides 

8 that can be associated with different counter cations to 

9 form salts. 

10 SEC. 3. LABELING CHANGES. 

11 Beginning not later than one year after the date of 

12 the enactment of this Act, a pesticide containing glypho13 sate (as defined in section 2(b)) is misbranded within the 

14 meaning of section 2(q) of the Federal Insecticide, Fun15 gicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136(q)) if its label16 ing does not include, in a clear and conspicuous manner, 

17 the following statement: ‘‘Unlawful to apply this product 

18 prior to harvest of oats.’’. 

19 SEC. 4. INCREASED TESTING FOR GLYPHOSATE BY THE DE20 PARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

21 Section 301 of the Food Quality Protection Act of 

22 1996 (21 U.S.C. 346a note) is amended by adding at the 

23 end the following new subsection: 

24 ‘‘(d) ANNUAL GLYPHOSATE TESTING.—Beginning 

25 not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1783 IH

1 of the Keep Food Safe from Glyphosate Act of 2019, and 

2 each year thereafter, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, 

3 as part of the residue data collection activities conducted 

4 under subsection (c), with respect to foods most likely con5 sumed by infants and children (including oats and oat6 based products), test for residues of glyphosate (as defined 

7 in section 2 of the Keep Food Safe from Glyphosate Act 

8 of 2019).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
**U.S. Navy Marksmanship Menu**

                    - Marksmanship Home
                    - Leadership                        - Officer in Charge
                      - Atlantic Coast Director
                      - Pacific Coast Director
                      - Action Shooting Director
                    - Team Members
                    - Upcoming Matches
                    - Achievements

                        -  **Facebook 
                        -  **X 

Tweets by usnavy?lang=en

**                                                                                    **

----

WelcomeThe U.S. Navy Marksmanship Team (USNMT) represents the Department of the Navy in inter-service and national competitions. Our mission is to identify, support and develop qualified Navy competitors to represent the Navy at competitions while training Sailors in marksmanship and small arms safety.

**USNMT History**

----

Navy competitive marksmanship began in 1907 when the first Navy rifle team won the “dogs of war” team trophy at the national matches at Camp Perry, Ohio. For the next 50 years, Sailors represented the Navy at all levels of competition including the Olympics. Seeing the value of using competitors as instructors, in 1957, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Arleigh Burke, an ardent supporter of small arms proficiency, took steps to get the Navy’s marksmanship training program on course by issuing a directive establishing marksmanship instructor billets throughout the Navy. To find marksmanship experts, records were searched to locate the top rifle and pistol marksman on active duty in the Navy. The Chief of Naval Personnel selected 32 highly qualified sailors as the core of the Navy's marksmanship team. The Small Arms Training Unit (SATU) was also established at Naval Training Center San Diego and served as the nucleus of skilled marksmen to compete, instruct, coach, and function as match officials at Navy-wide and national matches.

Over the years, the SATU was dis-established and Navy marksmanship experienced many changes and re-organization. However, the Navy Marksmanship Team (USNMT) continued to support competitive marksmanship with Sailors who dedicate their time and talent to advance precision marksmanship. Today, team members from all officer designators and enlisted rates compete and train Sailors in the fundamental and advanced skills supporting precision marksmanship. Additionally, each year at the annual Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) national pistol and rifle matches, Sailors from the USNMT compete while providing civilian marksmanship instruction and community outreach. The team can also be found competing at various matches around the country and at fleet concentration areas.

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 42 Filed 11/02/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 42 Filed 11/02/2007 Page 2 of 2
## Breadcrumb

-  about 

#           Documents      

-  About 
-  About Us 
-  Survey Manual 
-  Key Officials 
-  Organization 
-  Congressional 
-  Budget 
-  Careers and Employees 
-  Doing Business 
-  Emergency Management 
-  Documents 
-  Emergency Management Resources 

This is a collection of supporting documents to include instructions, training materials, technical memos, flowcharts, analytical references, and more. 

Official USGS Publications

**File icon

April 1, 2024

####   Temporary Recruitment Bulletin - Hydrologic Field Assistant

**File icon

March 25, 2024

####   Update for the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference from the USGS National Wildlife Health Center - March 2024

**File icon

March 25, 2024

####   Iowa Water Use Data and Research (WUDR) Workplan

**File icon

March 8, 2024

####   JACIE 2024 Workshop Agenda

**File icon

February 13, 2024

####   Grover Coloring Page

**File icon

February 7, 2024

####   EROS Science Processing Architecture On Demand Interface User Guide

**File icon

February 5, 2024

####   EORES Conceptual Data Model

**File icon

February 1, 2024

####   Pecora 2024 Award Call for Nominations

**File icon

January 25, 2024

####   April Seminar Series

**File icon

January 25, 2024

####   USGS Lidar Error Dictionary v.3.1

**File icon

January 20, 2024

####   Simplified table of Mauna Loa historical activity

**File icon

January 20, 2024

####   Simplified table of post‐1790 eruptive activity at Kīlauea volcano

#### Pagination

-                Current page            1 
-                Page            2 
-                Page            3 
-                Page            4 
-                Page            5 
-                Page            6 
-                Page            7 
-                Page            8 
-                Page            9 
- ...
-  Next page›› 
-  Last pageLast »
#### Roy L. FOGELSON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, the Secretary of the Treasury and Booker T. Leeks, Agent of the IRS, Defendants.

Civ. No. 83-1813.

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

Dec. 8, 1983.

Roy L. Fogelson, pro se.

Glen R. Dawson, Trial Atty., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CROW, District Judge.

This is a civil action to quash five Internal Revenue Service summonses issued to third-party record keepers pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7609(b)(2). Oral arguments would not be of benefit to the court in the determination of this matter. See Local Rule 15(d).

*574Plaintiff’s pro se complaint alleges that the summonses were “illegally issued ... to compel the production of records relating to claimant’s exercise of his 1st, 4th, 5th Amendment rights and are being sought for referral to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution of the claimant.” Plaintiff received a copy of the summonses on August 12, 1983 and commenced this action on September 1, 1983 within the 20 day period prescribed by section 7609(b)(2)(A). The government contends that plaintiff did not comply with section 7609(b)(2)(B) which requires

> If any person begins a proceeding under subparagraph (A) with respect to any summons, not later than the 20 day period referred to in subparagraph (A) such person shall mail by registered or certified mail a copy of the petition to the person summoned and to such office as the Secretary may direct in the notice referred to in subsection (a)(1).

In response to the government’s position, plaintiff indicates that he contacted third-party record keepers by telephone and informed them of his action to quash the summonses, therefore plaintiff contends it would be superfluous to provide copies of the complaint by certified or registered mail. The question presented by defendant’s motion to dismiss is whether a complainant’s failure to provide statutory notice to the party summoned and to the Secretary by registered or certified mail within 20 days of the receipt of the notice of the summons is a jurisdictional bar requiring dismissal of an action which was otherwise timely filed. Defendant provided the court with one case on point, *McTaggart v. United States,*570 F.Supp. 547 (E.D.Mich.1983). In *McTaggart,*the court found that section 7609 was a waiver of sovereign immunity requiring strict compliance with statutory procedures. *Id.*at 551. The court dismissed the case for failure of the taxpayer to comply with the notice requirements of section 7609(b)(2)(B). *See Reynolds v. United States,*643 F.2d 707, 713 (10th Cir.1981).

The United States may not be sued without its consent and the terms of its consent define this court’s jurisdiction. *United States v. Sherwood,*312 U.S. 584, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941). Failure of the complainant to mail by registered or certified mail a copy of the petition to the persons summoned not later than 20 days from the receipt of notice requires dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint is sustained.
Case 1:07-cv-05299-AKH Document 43-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05299-AKH Document 43-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 2
## Breadcrumb

-  News 

Breadcrumb-  News 

##   EPA sets limits on 'forever chemicals' in drinking water

      By Chesapeake Bay Activities      May 16, 2024    

Bay Journal — by Timothy B. Wheeler — May 13, 2024

Read full article at Bay Journal

"The Chesapeake Bay watershed’s checkerboard approach to 'forever chemicals' is finally beginning to end. The cost to water utility customers — and the timeline for real action — remains to be seen.

After a long delay, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has finalized enforceable nationwide limits in drinking water for six per– and polyfluoroalkyl substances, highly persistent toxic chemicals known by the shorthand term PFAS...

...In West Virginia, which has dealt with PFAS contamination in the Ohio and Potomac river watersheds, the state commissioned the U.S. Geological Survey to sample the finished drinking water of 37 public water systems previously identified as having certain PFAS compounds in their raw-water source. Twenty-seven public water systems were found to have detectable levels in their finished drinking water, and 19 had levels above at least one of the EPA’s proposed regulatory standards.

In Virginia, the state Department of Health has been conducting PFAS sampling at selected public drinking water systems since 2021. As of December 2023, the effort had found concentration levels of concern at 18 systems — mostly in Northern Virginia and the Newport News and Roanoke areas. Those systems serve about 2.5 million people, or nearly one-third of the state’s population.

David Sligh, conservation director of Wild Virginia, called on state regulators to follow up on the EPA’s rulemaking by taking action to prevent PFAS releases to the environment through wastewater discharges and sewage sludge applied to farmland.

A bill passed by the legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin this spring requires the Department of Environ-mental Quality to investigate potential sources of PFAS whenever a water system reports levels above the federal limit. Any manufacturing plant suspected of being the source must self-report the types of PFAS compounds it uses.

In Delaware, the U.S. Geological Survey detected PFAS in more than half of the 30 wells it sampled, with two above EPA’s maximum contaminant level.

And in New York, the state has provided $2.5 billion for upgrading water infrastructure. Hundreds of systems have detected unsafe PFAS levels."

### Get Our News

These items are in the RSS feed format (Really Simple Syndication) based on categories such as topics, locations, and more. You can install and RSS reader browser extension, software, or use a third-party service to receive immediate news updates depending on the feed that you have added. If you click the feed links below, they may look strange because they are simply XML code. An RSS reader can easily read this code and push out a notification to you when something new is posted to our site.

RSS Icon**

Chesapeake Bay Activities News

RSS Icon**

Water News

### Contacts

#### Ken Hyer, Ph.D.

##### Chesapeake Bay Coordinator

Chesapeake Bay Activities

kenhyer@usgs.gov

804-382-7111
NUMBER 13-21-00312-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

IN RE FRED T. PHILIPS AND MERCEDES PHILIPS

 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

 

ORDER

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

On October 1, 2021, relators Fred T. Philips and Mercedes Philips filed a petition 

for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to vacate its order enforcing a Rule 

11 agreement. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 11. Relators assert that the trial court abused its 

discretion (1) by granting a motion to enforce a Rule 11 agreement against parties that 

raised fact issues and revoked consent to the terms of the Rule 11 agreement, and (2) 

because the order granting the motion to enforce a Rule 11 agreement contains “material 

terms outside and beyond the Rule 11 agreement.” By previous order, this Court 
2

requested that the real parties in interest, Thomas D. Stikeleather and Lea Ann 

Stikeleather, or any others whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought,

file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8.

Relators have now filed a motion for temporary relief requesting that we stay the 

trial court’s September 28, 2021 order, and any enforcement action pertaining to that 

order, pending the resolution of this original proceeding. The Court, having examined and 

fully considered the motion for temporary relief, is of the opinion that it should be granted. 

Accordingly, we grant the motion for temporary relief and we order the trial court’s 

September 28, 2021 order and any enforcement action related to that order to be stayed 

pending further order of this Court.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the

7th day of October, 2021.