alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### **CHAPTER 5C—CONSERVATION PROGRAMS ON GOVERNMENT LANDS**

#### SUBCHAPTER I—CONSERVATION PROGRAMS ON MILITARY INSTALLATIONS

Sec.
670.
Definitions.
670a.
Cooperative plan for conservation and rehabilitation.
670a–1.
Repealed.
670b.
Migratory game birds; hunting permits.
670c.
Program for public outdoor recreation.
670c–1.
Cooperative and interagency agreements for land management on installations.
670d.
Liability for funds; accounting to Comptroller General.
670e.
Applicability to other laws; national forest lands.
670e–1.
Federal enforcement of other laws.
670e–2.
Natural resources management services.
670f.
Appropriations and expenditures.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—CONSERVATION PROGRAMS ON PUBLIC LANDS

670g.
Wildlife, fish, and game conservation and rehabilitation programs.
670h.
Comprehensive plans for conservation and rehabilitation programs.
670i.
Public land management area stamps for hunting, trapping, and fishing on public lands subject to programs.
670j.
Enforcement provisions.
670k.
Definitions.
670 l.
Stamp requirements not applicable to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands; authorized fees.
670m.
Indian rights; State or Federal jurisdiction regulating Indian rights.
670n.
Repealed.
670 o.
Authorization of appropriations.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 13180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5428]



[[Page 13180]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-2936-000]


West Deptford Energy, LLC; Notice of Shortened Comment Period on 
Request for Special Procedures

[February 23, 2011]

    On February 22, 2011, West Deptford Energy, LLC (WDE) filed a 
request for Commission determination that its unit-specific minimum 
capacity Sell Offer, which WDE proposes to offer into the May 2, 2011 
Base Residual Auction in PJM Interconnection LLC's Reliability Pricing 
Model capacity market, is justified pursuant to PJM's Minimum Offer 
Price Rule. WDE requests that the Commission develop procedures for the 
protection of confidential bid-related information in the above-
referenced proceeding. WDE also seeks a shortened comment period for 
its filing in order to expedite the Commission's consideration of its 
request for determination. In addition, WDE requests a separate, short 
notice period until March 1, 2011, for interested parties to file 
comments solely on the portion of WDE's filing requesting protection of 
confidential bid-related information and for special procedures.
    By this notice, the date for filing interventions on the entire 
filing, as well as protests and comments on the portion of WDE's filing 
requesting protection of confidential bid-related information and for 
special procedures, is shortened to and includes March 4, 2011. 
Additional procedures for commenting on WDE's request for a Commission 
determination that WDE's Sell Offer is justified will be established at 
a later date.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-5428 Filed 3-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
EXHIBIT 32

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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Amazing  Investments,  Inc.,
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2001 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"),  the undersigned,  B.
Stephen Bailey,  Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my  knowledge  and
belief:

         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.


Date: April 19, 2004

/s/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0381 Directorate Identifier: 2013-NE-16-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

ARRIUS 2 HMU 

inspection -0082 1.0 $ 85.00 $ 85.00 162 $13,770.00

parts cost $ 0.00 $753 $ 753.00 162 $121,986.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $135,756

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): ASE analysis 

number of engines from OEM
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Daniel R. Luis, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of GoAmerica, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, 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, fairlypresent 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 controlsand procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
      (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;

      (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and

      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

      (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

      (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant rolein the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 15, 2008

 
  /s/ Daniel R. Luis Daniel R. LuisChief Executive Officer
Editorial Note on Part 0
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 0 appear at 73 FR 73 FR 54947, Sept. 24, 2008.

§ 0.167 Submission to Associate Attorney General by Director of Office of Alien Property of certain proposed allowances and disallowances. In addition to the matters which he is required to submit to the Associate Attorney General under preceding sections of this subpart Y, the Director of the Office of Alien Property, shall submit to the Associate Attorney General for such review as he may desire to make the following: ( a ) Any proposed allowance by the Director, without hearing, of a title or debt claim.
( b ) Any final determination of a title of debt claim, whether by allowance or disallowance.
( c ) Any proposed allowance or disallowance by the Director, without hearing, of a title claim under section 9(a) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended, filed less than 2 years after the date of vesting in or transfer to the Alien Property Custodian or the Attorney General of the property or interest in respect of which the claim is made: *Provided,* That any such title or debt claim is within one of the following-described categories. ( 1 ) Any title claim which involves the return of assets having a value of $50,000 or more, or any debt claim in the amount of $50,000 or more.
( 2 ) Any title claim which will, as a practical matter, control the disposition of related title claims involving, with the principal claim, assets having a value of $50,000 or more; or any debt claim which will, as a practical matter, control the disposition of related debt claims in the aggregate amount, including the principal claim, of $50,000 or more.
( 3 ) Any title claim or debt claim presenting a novel question of law or a question of policy which, in the opinion of the Director, should receive the personal attention of the Associate Attorney General or the Attorney General.
( d ) Any sale or other disposition of vested property involving assets of $50,000 or more.
[Order No. 423-69, 34 FR 20388, Dec. 31, 1969, as amended by Order No. 445-70, 35 FR 19397, Dec. 23, 1970; Order No. 543-73, 38 FR 29587, Oct. 26, 1973; Order No. 568-74, 39 FR 18646, May 29, 1974; Order No. 699-77, 42 FR 15315, Mar. 21, 1977; Order No. 960-81, 46 FR 52352, Oct. 27, 1981]
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 12, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, April 12, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16I0170. G-MAN ENTERPRISES, LLC v. SHAYLA PACK.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 14CV3535
§ 115.33 Inmate education. ( a ) During the intake process, inmates shall receive information explaining the agency's zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse and sexual harassment and how to report incidents or suspicions of sexual abuse or sexual harassment.
( b ) Within 30 days of intake, the agency shall provide comprehensive education to inmates either in person or through video regarding their rights to be free from sexual abuse and sexual harassment and to be free from retaliation for reporting such incidents, and regarding agency policies and procedures for responding to such incidents.
( c ) Current inmates who have not received such education shall be educated within one year of the effective date of the PREA standards, and shall receive education upon transfer to a different facility to the extent that the policies and procedures of the inmate's new facility differ from those of the previous facility.
( d ) The agency shall provide inmate education in formats accessible to all inmates, including those who are limited English proficient, deaf, visually impaired, or otherwise disabled, as well as to inmates who have limited reading skills.
( e ) The agency shall maintain documentation of inmate participation in these education sessions.
( f ) In addition to providing such education, the agency shall ensure that key information is continuously and readily available or visible to inmates through posters, inmate handbooks, or other written formats.
<PAGE>

32.1     Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
         Officer of Highland Ridge, Inc. pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes
         Oxley Act of 2002


                            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 on Form 10-Q of HIGHLAND RIDGE (the
"Company") for the quarter ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
Michael Anthony, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Highland
Ridge, 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 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.

Dated: February 6, 2009

                                      /s/ Michael Anthony
                                      -----------------------
                                      Michael Anthony
                                      Chief Executive Officer


                                      /s/ Michael Anthony
                                      -----------------------
                                      Michael Anthony
                                      Chief Financial Officer
#### HENDKICKS *v.*ALLEN *et al.*

1. There was no error in allowing the amendment to the equitable petition, or in overruling the demurrer to the petition as amended.

2. Upon a consideration of all of the grounds of the motion for new trial, none of them presents any reason for a reversal.

June 14, 1910.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Eelton. -Bibb superior court.

June 1, 1909.

*John R. L. Smith,*for plaintiff in error.

*Martin & Morcock*and *Akerman & Akerman,*contra.

*552Atkinson,. J.

This case .was before the Supreme Court on a former occasion. *Hendricks*v. Allen, 128 *Ga.*181 (57 S. E. 224). A reversal was had because the court submitted the case to the jury on a theory or theories not authorized by the’ pleadings and evidence. In the opinion it was shown that the pleadings and evidence did not raise an issue as to an agreement or understanding for the conveyance of the land, by Locke to Allen; but it was said that it must not be concluded that the plaintiff might not have relief upon proper pleadings. When the case was returned to the superior court the plaintiff amended his pleadings so as to raise the issue which the former decision held he had not in the first instance made. This amendment did not add' a new cause of action or change an action of tort into one of contract. The original proceeding was not an action of tort, but an equitable suit praying for specific performance, for the cancellation of a mortgage, and for general relief. The amendment varied somewhat the grounds on which it was claimed that he was entitled to these remedies,, but there was no valid objection to its allowance. Nor was the petition, as amendéd, subject to the demurrer on the ground that it failed to set out any cause of action, or for want of proper, parties. A number of the grounds of the motion for new trial revolve about the question of whether or not the evidence measured up to the necessary standard to obtain relief under the pleadings, and whether there was enough evidence of a contract or understanding between Locke and Allen in regard to the manner in which the former held a deed to the land. Without taking up each of the grounds of the motion in detail, we have carefully'- examined them all, and are of the opinion that there was no error in any of the rulings complained of, either in regard to the evidence or certain portions of the charge or the refusal to charge as requested; certainly nothing that requires the grant of a new trial. The evidence was necessarily somewhat general and inferential; ' Locke was dead, and the plaintiff could not. testify; but upon the, whole we think that the case was made out. As against Hendricks, the mortgagee, there was enough to show that he was affected with notice;, and there was no error in refusing the motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
## State of N ew York Su p reme C ou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: April 23, 2015 519198

________________________________ In the Matter of RALPH FILIPOWICZ, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT ALBERT PRACK, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: February 24, 2015 Before: Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Rose and Clark, JJ.

__________ Ralph Filipowicz, Marcy, 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 Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Determination confirmed. No opinion. Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.-2- 519198

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
Exhibit


Exhibit 23




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of German American Bancorp, Inc. on Forms S-3 and S-8 (333-160749, 333-80605, 333-157277 and 333-197524) of our report dated March 9, 2016 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of German American Bancorp, Inc. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of German American Bancorp, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2015.
 
 
Crowe Horwath LLP
 
 
Indianapolis, Indiana
March 9, 2016
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2111

DOUGLAS KERR, M.D., PhD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. 

(1:10-cv-03294-BEL)

Submitted: May 1, 2012 Decided: May 14, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald C. Holmes, DONALD C. HOLMES & ASSOCIATES, P.A., 

Greensboro, Maryland, for Appellant. James L. Shea, Dino S. 

Sangiamo, Viktoriya M. Shpigelman, VENABLE LLP, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Douglas Kerr, M.D., Ph.D., appeals the district 

court’s order dismissing his complaint for failure to state a 

claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. Kerr v. Johns Hopkins Univ., No. 1:10-cv-03294-BEL (D. 

Md. Sept. 12, 2011) We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the Court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1500 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



# Document

Number: 

# 57 ) ll-C-8 3 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 8/5/20081:51:29PM

Sheet 57 of 343P. 2

Dat e sent : From : Subject : To : Copie s to : 

# A945 7

Mon , 0 1 De c 199 7 07:22:2 6 -050 0 MADELEIN E STRU M <STRUM.MADELEINE@epamail.epa.gov > 

## summaryo fSeptembe r18.199 7 MAC Tmeetin g blacovara@aol.com , robhab@erols.com , stevemcn@erols.com , jschweit@socplas.or g CHAPPELL.LlNDA@epamail.epa.gov , HERRlNC.LlNDA@epamail.epa.gov , MEYER.JAN@epamail.epa.gov Attache d (W P 6. 1 file ) i s th e meetin g summaryfro m th e Septembe r18,199 7 meetin g o n th e industr yMAC T proposal . I t i s bein g sen t t o al l participant s whos e emai l addres s I kno w(Joh n Schweitzer , Stev e McNally , Bo b Lacovara , Ro b Haberlein) . I woul d appreciat e i t i fJoh n o rStev e coul d mak e i t availabl e t o th e othe rindustrymeetin g participants . A s wit h al l ou rsummaries , i t wil l b e include d i n th e docke t fo rth e reinforce d plasti cNESHAP . (I fyo u se e somethin g tha t need s t o b e correcte d pleas e le t m e kno wsinc e w e ca n mak e th e change s befor e puttin g i t int o th e docket. )

Melani e Procto r - 1 Wed , 7 Ja n 199 8 09:38:1 8P. 3



## Docke t No . A-W-5" ^ Subcategor

y II - £ The enclosure s wit

hthi s documen

t ar e docke t itemNo.yfj£ ; & "

* / ' I



# 7s
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, *v.*Robert J. Kosilek, (Impleaded), Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 54426;

First District

September 21, 1971.

Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago, (Nunzio Dan Tisci, of counsel,) for appellants.

Edward V. Hanrahan, State’s Attorney, of Chicago, (Stephen Kramer, of counsel,) for the People.

Opinion by

Mr. JUSTICE GOLDBERG.