alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 5, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 39836]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14238]


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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

[Notice-PBS-2022-02; Docket No. 2022-0002; Sequence No. 11]


Federal Management Regulation; Designation of a Federal Building

AGENCY: Public Buildings Service (PBS), General Services 
Administration.

ACTION: Notice of a bulletin.

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

SUMMARY: The attached bulletin announces the redesignation of a federal 
building.

DATES: This bulletin expires January 5, 2023. The building designation 
remains in effect until canceled or superseded by another bulletin.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General Services Administration, PBS, 
Office of Portfolio Management, Attn: Chandra Kelley, 77 Forsyth Street 
SW, Atlanta, GA 30303, at 404-562-2763, or by email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4c2f242d22283e2d622729202029350c2b3f2d622b233a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a4c7ccc5cac0d6c58acfc1c8c8c1dde4c3d7c58ac3cbd2">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This bulletin announces the designation of a 
federal building. Public Law 117-103, dated March 15, 2022, designated 
the Federal Building located at 2005 University Boulevard in 
Tuscaloosa, Alabama, as the ``Richard Shelby Federal Building and 
Courthouse''.

Robin Carnahan,
Administrator of General Services.
[FR Doc. 2022-14238 Filed 7-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-Y1-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Telanetix, Inc., a Delaware corporation
      (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2006,
      as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Thomas A.
      Szabo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does each hereby certify,
      pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350),
      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 result of operations of the Company.




/S/
                THOMAS A. SZABOThomas
                A. SzaboChief
                Executive Officer




Dated:
      November 14, 2006







A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to Telanetix, Inc. and will be retained by Telanetix, Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
HomeNews

# Least Terns Find a New Home

## Volunteer project turns part of a dock into **nesting haven for threatened birds**.

Take a look! A section of a seldom-used dock along the waterfront in Charleston, South Carolina, is now a nesting ground for least terns threatened in the state.

Volunteers from NOAA, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, South Carolina Audubon, and others transformed part of an old Navy dock into an unlikely nesting hotspot for the least tern. As of August 7, 2016, least terns have created seven nests (and hatched eleven chicks!) on the pier behind NOAA's Office for Coastal Management.

###### **Search** Our Facts

###### Get **Social**

###### More **Information**

          - NOAA's Office for Coastal Management

Contact Us

            - Provide Feedback 
            -  Contact Us 
            -  Report an error 

##### Science. Service.Stewardship.

###### 						About NOS 					

            - About Us
            - NOS Program Offices
            - Media Inquiries
            - Website Acknowledgements

###### 						Resources 					

            - Site Index
            - Disclaimer
            - Freedom of Information Act
            - Accessibility

###### 						More Resources 					

            - Information Quality
            - Privacy Policy
            - NOS For Employees
            - USA.gov

          -  National Ocean Service
          -  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
          -  Department of Commerce

##### 						Social 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
**EXHIBIT32.1**

# **CERTIFICATIONBY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

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

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Visant Holding Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marc L. Reisch, the ChiefExecutive Officer 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)          TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: November 9, 2006 |         | /s/ Marc L.  Reisch        |
|------------------------|--------------|----------------------------|
|                   |         | Marc L. Reisch             |
|                   | *** *** | *President  and*           |
|                   | *** *** | *Chief  Executive Officer* |

 

----
**Exhibit 23.1**
**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(Registration Nos. 333-58648, 333-59826, 333-82122, 333-104697 and 333-113299) of our reports datedMarch 14, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Introgen Therapeutics,Inc., Introgen Therapeutics, Inc.’s management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting of Introgen Therapeutics, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the fiscalyear ended December 31, 2004.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Austin, Texas
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of United Agri Products, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 27, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, L. Kenneth Cordell, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to my knowledge:



|(1) | The 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: January 11, 2006



By:

/s/ L. Kenneth CordellL. Kenneth CordellPresident and Chief Executive OfficerPrincipal Executive Officer
IN RE N.F.

No. COA04-1695.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed December 20, 2005.

Certification Date January 9, 2006.

Appeal from Wake (O1J509)

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. HAWKINS.

No. COA03-942.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 6, 2004.

Certification Date July 26, 2004.

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00153

- CR

Donnell Junior Randles

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 3

o f Tarrant County (1312909R )

July 23 , 2015

Opinion by Justice Meier

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bill Meier

Justice Bill Meier
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5021 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on S-Bioallethrin. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 16, 2008 

Mrs. TAUSCHER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on SBioallethrin. 

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

3 SECTION 1. S-BIOALLETHRIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.24.33 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

9 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

10 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
BOONE v. CHRISTIAN CHAPEL UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST.

No. COA04-900.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed January 17, 2006.

Certification Date February 6, 2006.

Appeal from Wake (03CVS11344, 03CVS11966).

Case reported without published opinion. Vacated.
STATE v. MONTGOMERY

No. COA04-1611.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed November 15, 2005.

Certification Date December 5, 2005

Appeal from the Mecklengurg (03CRS240347, 03CRS240348).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: November 6, 2014 5 18707

________________________________ In the Matter of HERMAN BANK, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT STEVEN RACETTE, as Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: September 16, 2014 Before: Peters, P.J., Stein, McCarthy, Devine and Clark, JJ.

__________ Herman Bank, Coxsackie, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Washington County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. Petitioner, an inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul a tier II disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the mandatory $5 surcharge has been refunded to petitioner's inmate account. In view of this, and given that petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled, the matter is dismissed-2- 518707

as moot (see Matter of Howell v Fischer, 116 AD3d 1312, 1312 [2014]; Matter of Burroughs v Martuscello, 111 AD3d 1208, 1208 [2013]). Peters, P.J., Stein, McCarthy, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
Wesley D. STEVENS v. STATE of North Carolina.

No. 79P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 6, 2005.

Wesley D. Stevens, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 2nd day of February 2005 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of April 2005."
General Earl Rudder

Commissioner General Land Office Austin 14, Texas

Dear Sir: OpinionNo. WW-337
Re: Whether final judgment cancelling land transactions under the Veterans Land Program restored rights of veterans involved to partlcipate in saidprogram. The State of Texas brought suit to s&t aside the purchase and sale under the Veterans Land Program of a block of land in Zavala County because of certain fraudulentmisrepresentationsallegedlymade by the promoters to the State and to some of the veteranpurchasers. All veteranpurchasers of land in the block were made parties defendant to the State's suit, and the final judgmenttherein provided that the State recover judgment "rescindingand holding void and of no force and effeot from the beginning" the various applications, contracts and deeds by which the Veterans Land transactions in questionwere consummated. The judgmentfurtherprovided that all right, title and Interest In the lands involvedwere dlvested out of the defendantsand vested In the original owners "in fee simpleas if said title had never passed out of said defendants". Your letter requests our opinion a8 to whether such judgment restores the rights of the various veteran defendants in said suit to participate in theVeterans Land Program.

Section 13 of the Veterans Land Act, Article 5421m, 

### v.c.s provides that "no veteran shall be permittedby the Board'topurchasemore than one (1) tract of land under this Act;~'and

once such veteranhas obtained the benefits to be derived hereunder, he will not be permitted to apply again for such benefits".

We think It clear that the evident intent of the judgmentaforesaidwas to effect a cancellationof the original land transactionsat the instance of the State. In declaring same to be void from the beginning,we think the court intended that the veterans involved shouldbe in the sameposition as if the transactions in questionhad never occurred.General Earl Rudder,page 2 (w-337)

RThatwhich ia void is without vitality or legal effect.' Slaughter v. Quails, 139 Tex. 340, 162 S.W.2d 671, 674 (1942). That being true, the veterans involved are consideredas never havingmade the purchases In question, and they are thereforeprivileged to participate in theVeterans Land Program the same as If such eventshad never occurred. We answeryour question in the affirmative.
SUMMARY
A final judgmentof the court cancelling a Veterans Land transactionand providing that samewas void from the beginning restores the right of the veterans Involved to participate in the program. Very truly yours, WILL WILSON Attorney General of Texas

6 BY N -wpJ Arthur Sandlin Assistant JAS:dhs APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTRR: ffeo. P. Blackburn, Chairman W. V. Geppert Milton Rlahardson J. 6. Davis, Jr. RRVIEWEDF'ORTRRATTORNRY GENERAL BY: James N. Ludlum
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                           9,866
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,285
<ALLOWANCES>                                       177
<INVENTORY>                                     43,190
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               100,847
<PP&E>                                         109,394
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,273
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 232,243
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           62,315
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           162
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,044
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   232,243
<SALES>                                        516,599
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               516,599
<CGS>                                          417,358
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  417,358
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    69
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,090
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 67,461
<INCOME-TAX>                                    26,786
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             40,675
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    40,675
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.46
        

</TABLE>
IN RE B.W.

No. COA05-760

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed February 7, 2006

Certification Date February 27, 2006

Appeal from Mecklenburg (04J1200).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed; remanded for correction of a clerical error.
40 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020

HAWAII 

#21 #2 1.3% $5,506 #31 #9 #9

$7.7 B SPENT IN 8.5% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. PER RESIDENT $2.7 B CONTRACT 70,387 NUMBER OF $5.1 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Supplies and Equipment: 7%

Construction

Research 

69% Developm

: 17%

and

Service: ent: 7%

By Service 

Army

28%

Navy/Marines

54%

Air Force

8%

Other Defense

10%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 6%

National Guard: 7%

Civilian: 29%

Active Duty: 58%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

37%

Navy/Marines

47%

Air Force

14%

Other Defense

2%

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions)

Nan Inc. $190.9 M

Hensel Phelps Construction $119.4 M

Vigor Industrial $97.1 M

Smartronix $66.8 M

L3Harris Technologies $66.8 M

BAE Systems $59.1 M

Matson $58.8 M

Martin Defense Group $53.1 M

Booz Allen Hamilton $51.7 M

Kiewit Corp. $46.2 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$2.7 $2.4 $2.1 $2.2

FY13 FY14

$2.0 $1.9 $1.8 $1.6

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

$5.1 BILLION 70,387

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active Civilian National Reserve Total

Duty Guard

Honolulu 34,821 20,010 4,530 4,072 63,433

Hawaii ND 183 396 77 ND

Kauai 78 178 108 45 409

Maui 25 63 194 0 282
FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020 41

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

HAWAII 

FISCAL YEAR 2020 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions)

Honolulu

Kauai

Maui

Hawaii

(M = millions, B = billions)

$2.5 B

$87.1 M

$28.2 M

$28.1 M

Honolulu

Kauai

Hawaii

Maui

$4.6 B 

$27.6 M

$27.2 M

$13.9 M

Kauai

Honolulu

Maui

Hawaii

Kauai

Honolulu

Maui

Hawaii
# L_2016180EN.01000101.xml

| 6.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 180/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 180/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/1081

of 22 June 2016

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Krčko maslinovo ulje (PDO))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia's application to register the name ‘Krčko maslinovo ulje’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia's application to register the name ‘Krčko maslinovo ulje’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Krčko maslinovo ulje’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Krčko maslinovo ulje’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Krčko maslinovo ulje’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.5. — Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oil, etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 June 2016.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 99, 15.3.2016, p. 20.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
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 AER Ventures, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 Company.





Date:  August 12, 2004





/s/ Stuart Rogers

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

Stuart Rogers, President and C.E.O.

(Principal Executive Officer)
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5277 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Imidacloprid Technical. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2008 

Mrs. CAPITO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Imidacloprid 

Technical. 

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

3 SECTION 1. IMIDACLOPRID TECHNICAL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.10.32 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Imidacloprid Technical) is amended by striking the date 

7 in the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5277 IH

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS