alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 35.5 Rejection of material submitted for filing. ( a ) The Secretary, pursuant to the Commission's rules of practice and procedure and delegation of Commission authority, shall reject any material submitted for filing with the Commission which patently fails to substantially comply with the applicable requirements set forth in this part, or the Commission's rules of practice and procedure.
( b ) A rate filing that fails to comply with this Part may be rejected by the Director of the Office of Energy Market Regulation pursuant to the authority delegated to the Director in § 375.307(a)(1)(ii) of this chapter.
[Order 271, 28 FR 10573, Oct. 2, 1963, as amended by Order 614, 65 FR 18227, Apr. 7, 2000; Order 699, 72 FR 45325, Aug. 14, 2007; Order 701, 72 FR 61054, Oct. 29, 2007]
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 614 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 614

    To direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a final rule 
 relating to removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of 
   grizzly bears from the Federal list of endangered and threatened 
                               wildlife.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 28, 2019

   Mr. Enzi introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a final rule 
 relating to removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of 
   grizzly bears from the Federal list of endangered and threatened 
                               wildlife.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Grizzly Bear State Management Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. REISSUANCE OF FINAL RULE RELATING TO GREATER YELLOWSTONE 
              ECOSYSTEM POPULATION OF GRIZZLY BEARS.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue the final rule 
relating to removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of 
grizzly bears from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife, published on June 30, 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 30502), without 
regard to any other provision of statute or regulation that applies to 
issuance of such rule. Such reissuance (including this section) shall 
not be subject to judicial review.
                                 <all>
```
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

636 KA 13-02116 PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHRISTOPHER M. HORR, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DAVISON LAW OFFICE PLLC, CANANDAIGUA (MARY P. DAVISON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER, FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Alex R. Renzi, J.), rendered October 2, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second degree, false personation and resisting arrest.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of, inter alia, assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [3]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that Supreme Court failed to articulate a sufficient jury instruction with respect to the causation element of Penal Law § 120.05 (3) ( see generally People v Townsley , 50 AD3d 1610, 1611, lv denied 11 NY3d 742), and we decline to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495).

We reject defendant’s contention that the court abused its discretion in denying his request for new counsel. The general assertions of defendant that counsel was “not complying with [his] wishes” and that he was not “being represented properly” were not sufficient to raise a “ ‘serious complaint’ ” warranting substitution of counsel ( People v Adger , 83 AD3d 1590, 1591, lv denied 17 NY3d 857). Finally, the court properly granted defendant’s request to proceed pro se after inquiring into defendant’s education and knowledge of legal matters, making defendant aware of the disadvantages of proceeding without counsel, and appointing standby counsel to assist defendant at trial, if necessary ( see generally-2- 636 KA 13-02116
People v Providence , 2 NY3d 579, 582).

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
§ 806.31 Term of approvals. ( a ) Approvals issued under this part shall have a term equal to the term of any accompanying member jurisdiction approval regulating the same subject matter, but not longer than 15 years, unless an alternate period is provided for in the Commission approval. If there is no such accompanying member jurisdiction approval, or if no term is specified in such accompanying member jurisdiction approval, the term of a Commission approval issued under this part shall be no longer than 15 years or the anticipated life of the project, whichever is less, unless an alternate period is provided for in the Commission approval.
( b ) Commission approval of a project shall expire three years from the date of such approval if the withdrawal, diversion or consumptive use has not been commenced, unless an alternate period is provided for in the docket approval or such 3-year period is extended in writing by the Commission upon written request from the project sponsor submitted no later than 120 days prior to such expiration. The Commission may grant an extension, for a period not to exceed two years, only upon a determination that the delay is due to circumstances beyond the project sponsor's control and that there is a likelihood of project implementation within a reasonable period of time. The Commission may also attach conditions to the granting of such extensions, including modification of any terms of approval that the Commission may deem appropriate.
( c ) If a withdrawal, diversion or consumptive use approved by the Commission for a project is discontinued for a period of five consecutive years, the approval shall be null and void, unless a waiver is granted in writing by the Commission, upon written request by the project sponsor demonstrating due cause and with notification thereof to the member jurisdiction in which the project is located, prior to the expiration of such period.
( d ) If the Commission determines that a project has been abandoned, by evidence of nonuse for a period of time and under such circumstances that an abandonment may be inferred, the Commission may revoke the approval for such withdrawal, diversion or consumptive use.
( e ) If a project sponsor submits an application to the Commission no later than six months prior to the expiration of its existing Commission docket approval or no later than one month prior to the expiration of its existing ABR or NOI approval, the existing approval will be deemed extended until such time as the Commission renders a decision on the application, unless the existing approval or a notification in writing from the Commission provides otherwise.
[71 FR 78579, Dec. 29, 2006, as amended at 82 FR 29394, June 29, 2017]
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No
333-04647 and 333-04649 of Full Line Distributors, Inc. (formerly L.A. T
Sportswear, Inc.) on Form S-8 of our report dated February 11, 2000 (March 1,
2000 as to Note 9), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Full Line
Distributors, Inc. for the year ended January 1, 2000.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
March 28, 2000
**EXHIBIT NO. 99.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CFO 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of SangStat Medical Corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), Stephen G. Dance, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

| **Signature**                  |   | **Title**                                                                              |   | **Date**       |
|--------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------|
|                                |   |                                                                                        |   |                |
|                           |   |                                                                                   |   |           |
| /s/ STEPHEN G. DANCE           |   | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |   | March 26, 2003 |
|                                |   |                                                                                   |   |
| **Stephen G. Dance, CPA, FCA** |   |                                                                                   |   |
|                           |   |                                                                                   |   |

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposesof Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<PAGE>



                                                                      Exhibit 32


      ServiceWare Technologies, Inc. Certification under Section 906 of the
Sarbanes/Oxley Act - filed as an exhibit to 10-Q for Quarter Ended June 30, 2003



                            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 ServiceWare Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Kent Heyman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Scott
Schwartzman, Chief Financial 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 to the best of our 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.



/s/ Kent Heyman                                      /s/ Scott Schwartzman

Kent Heyman                                          Scott Schwartzman
Principal Executive Officer                          Principal Financial Officer
August 14, 2003                                      August 14, 2003



                                       27
§ 35.23 General provisions. ( a ) *Applicability.* This subpart applies to any wholesale sale of electric energy in a coordination transaction by a public utility if that sale requires the use of an emissions allowance.
( b ) *Implementation Procedures.* ( 1 ) If a public utility has a coordination rate schedule on file that expressly provides for the recovery of all incremental or out-of-pocket costs, such utility may make an abbreviated rate filing detailing how it will recover emissions allowance costs. Such filing must include the following: the index or combination of indices to be used; the method by which the emission allowance amounts will be calculated; timing procedures; how inconsistencies, if any, with dispatch criteria will be reconciled; and how any other rate impacts will be addressed. In addition, a utility making an abbreviated filing must: ( i ) Clearly identify the filing as being limited to an amendment to a coordination rate to reflect the cost of emissions allowances, in the first paragraph of the letter of transmittal accompanying the filing;
( ii ) Submit the revisions in accordance with § 35.7; and
( iii ) Identify each rate schedule to which the amendment applies.
( 2 ) The abbreviated filing must apply consistent treatment to all coordination rate schedules. If the filing does not apply consistent rate treatment, the public utility must explain why it does not do so.
( 3 ) If a public utility wants to charge incremental costs for emissions allowances, but its rate schedule on file with the Commission does not provide for the recovery of all incremental costs, the selling public utility may submit an abbreviated filing if all customers agree to the rate change. If customers do not agree, the selling public utility must tender its emissions allowance proposal in a separate section 205 rate filing, fully justifying its proposal.
[59 FR 65938, Dec. 22, 1994, as amended by Order 714, 73 FR 57533, Oct. 3, 2008]
#### § 385.2015 Videotapes (Rule 2015).

Any person may file a videotape that portrays the site of, or some physical aspect of, an energy project, such as a waterfall or flood waters at the site of an existing or proposed hydroelectric project, or construction activities at the site of a natural gas pipeline. The filing must include a written statement describing the place, date, and time at which the videotape was filmed, who filmed it, what it purports to depict, and the caption and docket number of the proceeding (if any) in which it is to be filed. Any person who files a videotape and who is also a party (either as an applicant or as an intervenor) to a docketed proceeding in which the videotape is filed must file four copies of the videotape with the Commission's Secretary, in VHS format with voice-over or pictorial inclusion of the data contained in the accompanying written statement, serve copies of the videotape on all of the other parties to the proceeding, and include a certificate of service with the filing.

[Order 573, 59 FR 63247, Dec. 8, 1994. Redesignated by Order 687, 71 FR 62921, Oct. 27, 2006]
Exhibit 32.2



STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the Form 10-K) of Middleburg Financial Corporation (the Company), I, Alice P. Frazier, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



(a)

the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(b)

the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company and its subsidiaries as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-K.





Date:  March 16, 2003

/s/ Alice P. Frazier



Alice P. Frazier

Executive Vice President

and Chief Operating Officer
# v5.0
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13505-13506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5744]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1030; Airspace Docket No. 10-AGL-18]


Amendment of Class E Airspace; La Porte, IN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects errors in the geographic coordinates of a 
final rule published in the Federal Register February 1, 2011, that 
amends Class E airspace in the La Porte, IN area.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC May 5, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center, 
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest 
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On February 1, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a 
final rule amending Class E airspace in the La Porte, IN area (76 FR 
5471), Docket No. FAA-2010-1030. Subsequent to publication, errors were 
discovered in the geographic coordinates for the La Porte Hospital 
Heliport point in space and the La Porte NDB. This action corrects 
these coordinates.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of 
FAA Order 7400.9U dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 
2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, on page 
5472, column one, in the airspace description, under La Porte NDB, 
remove ``lat. 41[deg]29'56'' N., long. 86[deg]46'17'' W.'', and insert 
``lat. 41[deg]29'56'' N., long. 86[deg]46'16'' W.''.
    On page 5472, column one, in the regulatory text, remove ``* * * 
and within a 6-mile radius of the La Porte Hospital point in space at 
lat. 41[deg]29'56'' N., long. 86[deg]46'17'' W.'' and insert ``and 
within a 6-mile radius of the La Porte Hospital point in space at lat. 
41[deg]36'11'' N., long. 86[deg]44'10'' W.''


[[Page 13506]]


    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 4, 2011.
Walter L. Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-5744 Filed 3-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
#### In the Matter of the Claim of George Huhn, Appellant, against Freeport Lodge B. P. O. Elks # 1253 et al., Respondents. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

Third Department,

April 28, 1943.

*Walter F. Forster*for appellant.

*Charles P. Barre*for respondents.

*Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General,*for State Industrial Board, respondent.

Heefernan, J.

This is an appeal by claimant from an adverse decision of the State Industrial Board. The sole question is whether or not claimant’s injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment.

*56Claimant prior to Ms accident had been employed by Free-port Lodge of Elks for a period of about fifteen years. He was also a member of the lodge and had been for about twenty-four years. Claimant’s duties as a bartender required him to serve drinks from the b'ar to the members and guests. He was neither expected nor required to entertain the guests.

On the evening of January 24,1941, the lodge furmshed entertainment to which its members and the public were invited. About midnight four ladies, who had attended the entertainment, entered the barroom and seated themselves at a table in front of the bar. They ordered drinks which claimant served. Claimant then invited the ladies t'a have a drink on the house which they accepted. A juke machine was furnishing music and a couple were dancing. Claimant requested one of the ladies to dance with him. She declined. One of her companions, however, accepted the invitation.

The Board found, reversing the decision of the referee, that while in the act of dancing with a woman guest, claimant fell and suffered a fracture of the left femur. It also found that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. In the memorandum of reversal the Board said: “ On January 25, 1941, the claimant was working as a bartender and at about 12:20 a. m. he asked a woman guest to dance. She took the position to dance and claimant put his arm about her and as she was attempting to take the first step, she felt his foot twist and he went down.

‘‘ The Board is of the opinion that when the claimant asked the woman guest to dance and started to do so, he stepped out of his employment and became a member of the club and that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment. ’ ’

We think this case was correctly decided and that the decision of the State Industrial Board should be affirmed, but without costs.

Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss and Schenck, JJ., concur.

Decision of the State Industrial Board affirmed, without costs.
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.                  

###### Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council

          - [Docket No. AS11-07]

# AGENCY:

Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

*Description:*                     In accordance with Section 1104(b) of Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, as amended, notice is hereby given that the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) will meet in closed session:                

*Location:*                     OCC—250 E Street, SW., Room 7C/7CA, Washington, DC 20219.                

*Date:*                     March 15, 2011.                

*Time:*                     Immediately following the ASC open session.                

*Status:*                     Closed.                

*Matters To Be Considered:*

February 9, 2011 minutes—Closed Session.

Preliminary discussion of State Compliance Reviews.

Dated: March 7, 2011.

James R. Park, 

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 2011-5534 Filed 3-9-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P