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 notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1):*                         October 18, 2017.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 13, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United                               ( print page 48542)                            States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Express Contract 51 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-10, CP2018-17.                

Elizabeth A. Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2017-22585 Filed 10-17-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
---

CONSENT OF EXPERT

March 25, 2013

Augusta Resource Corporation

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Re: Augusta Resource
Corporation

I, Robert Fong, do hereby
consent to the filing of the written disclosure regarding the technical report
entitled NI 43-101 Technical Report for the Rosemont Copper Project Updated
Feasibility Study, Pima County, Arizona, dated August 28, 2012 for the Rosemont
Project located in Pima County, Arizona in the Form 40-F Annual Report dated
March 25, 2013, and any amendments thereto, and the Annual Information Form of
Augusta Resource Corporation (the Company) dated March 25, 2013.

I also consent to the use of my
name in the Companys Form 40-F Annual Report, and any amendments thereto, and
the Annual Information Form dated March 25, 2013 and to the incorporation by
reference of the Companys Annual Report on Form 40-F and any amendments
thereto, and the Annual Information Form dated March 25, 2013 in the Companys
Form S-8 Registration Statement (SEC File No. 333-173297).

| | By: | /s/
      Robert Fong            
| | --- | ---------------------------------
| |     | Robert Fong, P.E.                
| |     | Principal Mining Engineer        
| |     | Moose Mountain Technical Services

---
---

CONSENT OF EXPERT

March 31, 2014

Augusta Resource Corporation

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Re: Augusta Resource
Corporation

I, Robert Fong, do hereby
consent to (i) the filing of the written disclosure regarding the technical
report entitled Rosemont Copper Project NI 43-101 Technical Report Updated
Feasibility Study, Pima County, Arizona, USA, dated August 28, 2012 in the Form
40-F Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2013, and any amendments
thereto (the Form 40-F), of Augusta Resource Corporation (the Company),
filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and in the
Companys Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the
AIF) and (ii) the incorporation by reference of such disclosure in the
Companys Form S-8 Registration Statement being filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission (the S-8).

I also consent to the use of my name
in the Form 40-F, and any amendments thereto, and in the AIF and to the
incorporation by reference of the Form 40-F and any amendments thereto, and the
AIF into the S-8 and into the Registration Statements on Form S-8 of the Company
filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (No. 333-157887,
No. 333-163161, and No. 333-173297).

| | By: | /s/
      Robert Fong    
| | --- | -------------------------
| |     | Robert Fong, P.E.        
| |     | Principal Mining Engineer

---
#### Estate of Henry M. Bonis, Jr., Deceased, by Dianne Van Laer, as Executor, Appellant, v Rudy Djabbarzadeh, Respondent.

[666 NYS2d 12]

—In an action to recover on a promissory note, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), dated September 30, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as untimely.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly applied New York law in determining whether this action was timely commenced *(see,*CPLR 202). The plaintiff does not dispute that the note in question was a demand note such that, under New York law, the six-year limitations period on an action to recover on the note began running at the time of its execution *(see,*CPLR 213; *Phoenix Acquisition Corp. v Campcore, Inc.,*81 NY2d 138, 143; *Bank of N. Y. v Bersani,*90 AD2d 302). Absent a toll or extension, the limitations period in this case expired on May 15, 1995, more than four months prior to commencement of this action.

*261We find no merit to the plaintiffs contention that the limitation period was extended pursuant to General Obligations Law § 17-101. Even assuming that the author of the document relied upon by the plaintiff was acting on behalf of the defendant in his individual capacity, the document was inconsistent with any intent to repay the debt, such that it did not constitute an acknowledgment *(see, Morris Demolition Co. v Board of Educ.,*40 NY2d 516, 521; *National Westminster Bank v Petito,*202 AD2d 193). Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the action. Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          13,437
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,042
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,562
<INVENTORY>                                     14,584
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,730
<PP&E>                                          52,168
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,824
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 441,691
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,348
<BONDS>                                        140,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           21,644
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,854
<OTHER-SE>                                     (20,391)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   441,691
<SALES>                                        120,022
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                           74,403
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  107,097
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    54
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   127
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,333
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,538
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,028
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,510
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (208)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,302
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0




</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3456 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1900 West Gray Street in Houston, Texas, as the ‘‘Hazel Hainsworth 

Young Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2009 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1900 West Gray Street in Houston, Texas, 

as the ‘‘Hazel Hainsworth Young Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HAZEL HAINSWORTH YOUNG POST OFFICE 

4 BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 1900 West Gray Street in Hous7 ton, Texas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Hazel 

8 Hainsworth Young Post Office Building’’. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3456 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Hazel Hainsworth 

5 Young Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
#### Jonadel Rodriguez, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Maribel Rodriguez, Respondent, v New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation et al., Defendants, and Maternity Infant Care—Family Planning Projects et al., Appellants.

[666 NYS2d 179]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on or about June 19, 1997, which denied a motion by defendants-appellants *175Maternity Infant Care—Family Planning Projects, Medical and Health Research Association of New York City, Inc., and Georgia Rose for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against movants, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants-appellants dismissing the complaint as against them.

The gravamen of plaintiffs claim against appellants is that they failed to refer the infant’s mother to a physician for an immediate cesarean section on June 19, 1992. On June 22, 1992, however, when defendant Suarez, a physician, examined the mother, she came to the conclusion that a cesarean section was unnecessary. Two other physicians, Bourne and defendant White, examined the mother on June 23, 1992, and reached the same conclusion. In light of the determinations on June 22 and 23, 1992 by three physicians to proceed with a vaginal delivery, there is no basis upon which to conclude that a referral by appellants on June 19, 1992 would have resulted in a different course of action. Accordingly, we find plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the alleged failure was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs injuries.

The IAS Court erred in denying the motion, made in March 1997, as untimely. The 120 day period for making a summary judgment motion under the amendment of CPLR 3212 (a) in 1996 begins to run from its effective date of January 1, 1997 *{Phoenix Garden Rest, v Chu,*245 AD2d 164 [released herewith]. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Williams and Colabella, JJ.
Exhibit 31.1
 
 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 UNDER
 SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
 
 I, Michael J. Lewis, Chief Financial Officer of Collectors Universe, Inc. certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Collectors Universe, Inc. for the quarter ended December 31, 2003;
 
 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
 made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
 condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.
 
 4.  The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
 Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15( e) of the Exchange Act) for the registrant and we have:
 
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5.  The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
 registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 
 (a)           All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
 likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
  (b)           A ny fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
 over financial reporting.
 Date: February 17, 2004

/s/ MICHAEL J. LEWISMichael J. LewisChief Financial Officer
An official website of the United States governmentHere’s how you knowHere’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**(Locked padlock icon) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.Federal Maritime Commission



Affilite Info for Search FMC.gov
        Search FMC.gov
        SearchFederal Maritime Commission



Menu
				Close
							AboutComplaints and AssistanceLicensing and CertificationProceedingsDatabases and PublicationsNews and Advisories



Affilite Info for Search FMC.gov
        Search FMC.gov
        Search Home > FTDO > Statement of Commissioner Max Vekich on the Reopening of the Baltimore Harbor Channel

Statement of Commissioner Max Vekich on the Reopening of the Baltimore Harbor Channel


Posted on:


June 13, 2024 I commend the Francis Scott Key Bridge Response Unified Command team and all those involved in the tireless efforts to fully reopen the Fort McHenry Federal Channel in the Port of Baltimore. The progress made since my visit in April with Chairman Maffei is nothing short of astounding and none of it was possible without the robust leadership of the Biden Administration and cooperation between federal, state, local, and private institutions.



Of utmost importance is that the return of cargo vessels and cruise ships to the Port translates to normalization of the supply chain and restoration of jobs, including the return of good-paying unionized jobs in the Port. I fully support the ongoing cleanup efforts and look forward to continued success in reopening the Port of Baltimore and the rebuilding of the Key Bridge.



The Key Bridge response demonstrated what can be accomplished when we all work together to keep the cargo moving.



*Max Vekich is a Commissioner with the U.S. Federal Maritime Commission. The thoughts and comments expressed here are his own and do not necessarily represent the position of the Commission.* Return to top
    
    
    
    **FMC Information**
    
    
    
    About the FMC
    
    
    
    Employment Opportunities
    
    
    
    Site Policies
    
    
    
    FOIA
    
    
    
    **Government Information**
    
    
    
    Inspector General
    
    
    
    U.S. Office of Special Counsel
    
    
    
    Open Government at the FMC
    
    
    
    USA.gov
    
    
    
    Federal Maritime Commission
    
    
    Our mission is to **ensure a competitive and reliable** **international ocean transportation supply system** that supports the U.S. economy and protects the public from unfair and deceptive practices.
    
    
    
    X
    
    YouTube
    
    LinkedIn800 North Capitol Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20573inquiries@fmc.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                    51,156
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                81,644
<PP&E>                                         527,441
<DEPRECIATION>                                  39,342
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,269,034
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,106,528
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           668
<OTHER-SE>                                     161,838
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,269,034
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,330
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,127,824
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,635
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,117,494)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,117,494)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,117,494)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.16)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32









CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Luna Medical Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Cameron King, 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:



(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









/s/ Cameron King



Cameron King

Chief Executive Officer

September 29, 2003



























In connection with the Quarterly Report of Luna Medical Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Grod McDougall, Acting Chief Financial 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:



(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









/s/ Gord McDougall



Gord McDougall

Acting Chief Financial Officer

September 29, 2003
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-17-00836-CR

Larry Wayne THOMAS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR12149W

Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 28, 2018

DISMISSED

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea-bargain 

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain, 

and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and 

agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court’s certification accurately reflects that the 

underlying case is a plea-bargain case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).

Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “The appeal must be 

dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part 
04-17-00836-CR

- 2 -

of the record under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). On January 23, 2018, we ordered that 

this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification 

showing that the appellant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record by February 

22, 2018. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005); Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). No 

response was filed. In the absence of an amended trial court certification showing that the 

appellant has the right of appeal, rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal. 

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH