alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-32           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF PAUL EGAN AND CIARAN EGAN

                       SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the quarterly report of FreeStar Technology
Corporation ("Registrant") on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended
March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates
indicated below, hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that to their
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 Registrant.


Dated: March 25, 2004                  By: /s/  Paul Egan
                                       Paul Egan, President


Dated: March 25, 2004                  By: /s/  Ciaran Egan
                                       Ciaran Egan, Chief Financial Officer
### §816. Preservation of rights vested prior to June 10, 1920

The provisions of this subchapter shall not be construed as affecting any permit or valid existing right-of-way granted prior to June 10, 1920, or as confirming or otherwise affecting any claim, or as affecting any authority heretofore given pursuant to law, but any person, association, corporation, State, or municipality holding or possessing such permit, right-of-way or authority may apply for a license under this chapter, and upon such application the Commission may issue to any such applicant a license in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter and in such case the provisions of this chapter shall apply to such applicant as a licensee under this chapter: Provided, That when application is made for a license under this section for a project or projects already constructed the fair value of said project or projects determined as provided in this section, shall for the purposes of this subchapter and of said license be deemed to be the amount to be allowed as the net investment of the applicant in such project or projects as of the date of such license, or as of the date of such determination, if license has not been issued. Such fair value shall be determined by the Commission after notice and opportunity for hearing.

(June 10, 1920, ch. 285, pt. I, §23(a), 41 Stat. 1075; renumbered pt. I and amended, Aug. 26, 1935, ch. 687, title II, §§210, 212, 49 Stat. 846, 847.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section consists of subsec. (a) of section 23 of act June 10, 1920, as so designated by act Aug. 26, 1935. Subsec. (b) of section 23 of act June 10, 1920, is set out as section 817 of this title.

#### Amendments

1935—Act Aug. 26, 1935, §210, amended section generally, substituting "part" for "chapter" wherever appearing, substituting "heretofore" for "then", and substituting the last sentence for "Such fair value may, in the discretion of the commission, be determined by mutual agreement between the commission and the applicant or, in case they cannot agree, jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the district court of the United States in the district within which such project or projects may be located, upon the application of either party, to hear and determine the amount of such fair value."
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

RICHMOND DIVISION

RE: Tina Cantwell-Brooke XXX-XX-9407

 

Case No. 18-35289-KLP

DIRECTIVE FOR TERMINATION OF WAGE DEDUCTION

City of Richmond

Attention: Payroll Department

730 E. Broad St.

6th Floor

Richmond, VA 23219

IT IS DIRECTED:

That the above Employer be, and is hereby directed to discontinue withholding any additional funds 

from the wages of the Debtor, Tina Cantwell-Brooke, and to remit directly to the debtor any funds 

held or to be held as of the date of this Directive under the previous Directive for Deduction.

THIS DIRECTIVE IS ENTERED PURSUANT TO A STANDING ORDER OF THE UNITED 

STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT.

Dated: February 11, 2019

/S/ Carl M. Bates

Carl M. Bates, Trustee

Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division

IF ANY INFORMATION IS DESIRED REGARDING THIS DIRECTIVE, CALL THE 

TRUSTEE’S OFFICE AT 804.237.6800 OR FAX TO 804.237.6801

The Trustee does hereby certify that a copy of this Directive was mailed to the Debtor and the employer 

and electronically sent to Debtor’s counsel on the date above written.

/S/ Carl M. Bates

Carl M. Bates, Trustee

Case 18-35289-KLP Doc 21 Filed 02/11/19 Entered 02/11/19 11:40:11 Desc 

 Page 1 of 1
§ 30.29 What procedures apply when the Secretary offsets to collect a debt owed another agency? The Secretary may initiate offset to collect a debt owed another Federal agency if: ( a ) An official of that agency certifies in writing: ( 1 ) That the debtor owes a debt to the United States;
( 2 ) The amount of the debt; and
( 3 ) That the agency has complied with 4 CFR 102.3; and
( b ) For offsets under 31 U.S.C. 3716, the Secretary makes an independent determination that the offset meets the standards under § 30.21(a)(2).
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3(a)(1) and 1226a-1, 31 U.S.C. 3716(b))
#### Nathan Hasberg, Appellant, v. Picker Brothers, Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present—Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                            HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

     Houghton Mifflin directly or indirectly owns all of its subsidiaries,
including those significant subsidiaries on the list below. The consolidated
financial statements include all of Houghton Mifflin's subsidiaries.

     1.  McDougal Littell Inc., a Delaware corporation.

     2.  The Riverside Publishing Company, a Delaware corporation.

     3.  Great Source Education Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

     4.  Sunburst Technology Corporation, a Delaware corporation.

     5.  Computer Adaptive Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation.
### Geology of the Mount Pinchot quadrangle, southern Sierra Nevada, California

By: James Gregory Moore

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1130

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
§ 270.21 How does the Secretary determine the amount of a grant? The Secretary determines the amount of a grant on the basis of: ( a ) The amount of funds available for all grants under this part;
( b ) A cost analysis of the project (that shows whether the applicant will achieve the objectives of the project with reasonable efficiency and economy under the budget in the application), by which the Secretary: ( 1 ) Verifies the cost data in the detailed budget for the project;
( 2 ) Evaluates specific elements of costs; and
( 3 ) Examines costs to determine if they are necessary, reasonable, and allowable under applicable statutes and regulations;
( c ) Evidence supporting the magnitude of the need of the responsible governmental agencies for desegregation assistance in the geographic region and the cost of providing that assistance to meet those needs, as compared with the evidence supporting the magnitude of the needs for desegregation assistance, and the cost of providing it, in all geographic regions for which applications are approved for funding;
( d ) The size and the racial, ethnic, or religious diversity of the student population of the geographic region for which the EAC will provide services; and
( e ) Any other information concerning desegregation problems and proposed activities that the Secretary finds relevant in the applicant's geographic region.
Exhibit32.3

 

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the AnnualReport of Idaho Power Company (the "Company") on Form 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2009, (the "Report"), I, J. LaMont Keen, Presidentand Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that:

 

(1)              The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)              The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| */s/J. LaMont Keen*                   |
|---------------------------------------|
| J. LaMont Keen                        |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| February 23, 2010                     |
|                                  |

 

----
Hakikisha inafunika pua na mdomo wako ili kusaidia katika kuwalinda wengine. 

Unaweza kupata maambukizi bila kuwa na dalili.

Hakikisha inafunika pua na mdomo wako ili kusaidia katika kuwalinda wengine. 

Unaweza kupata maambukizi bila kuwa na dalili.

Na Uvae Maski

Zingatia Kuwa 

Mbali na Wengine

Kaa futi 6 (Urefu wa mikono 2) mbali na watu wengine.

Saidia Katika Kujilinda Mwenyewe na 

Wengine kutokana na COVID-19

CS 317927-L 10/02/2020
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Kinjo SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-4486.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 26, 2002.

Decided May 6, 2002.

*904Craig W. Sampson, Law Office of Craig W. Sampson, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Michael E. Rich, Assistant United States Attorney, Kenneth W. Gaul, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

William Kinjo Smith appeals his conviction and sentence for two counts of unlawful possession of firearms by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e)(1) (West 2000). The convictions arose from events taking place at different times and at different locations, the first on June 12, 1998 at Gilbert Small Arms Shooting Range and the second on July 7, 2000 at Smith’s apartment.

Smith first claims the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the firearms seized from the bedroom of his apartment on July 7, 2000. We find that the police officers involved in Smith’s arrest properly engaged in a protective sweep of the bedroom for their protection and to ensure the security of the premises. *See Maryland v. Buie,*494 U.S. 325, 335, 110 S.Ct. 1093, 108 L.Ed.2d 276 (1990). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Smith’s motion to suppress.

Smith next argues that insufficient evidence existed to establish his conviction for unlawful possession on June 12,1998 at the shooting range. The district court’s decision to deny a motion for judgment of acquittal for insufficiency of the evidence is reviewed de novo. *United States v. Romer,*148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir.1998). The standard of review is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). We find the jury could have reasonably concluded that Smith unlawfully possessed a firearm at the range, given the substantial evidence linking him to the rental and use of a firearm on that day.

Finally, Smith asserts the district court erred in raising his offense level for possession of a machine gun under *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines*§ 4B1.4(b)(3)(A) and § 2K2.1(a)(3). We have carefully reviewed the district court’s factual and legal findings and have found no error, as we decline to read a scienter requirement into these guidelines. *See United States v. Fry,*51 F.3d 543, 546 (5th Cir.1995).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny Smith’s motions for substitution of counsel, discovery, production of documents, and to file a pro se formal brief. We deny his motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel as moot. 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.*
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4952 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations to revise title 

49, Code of Federal Regulations, to require an air carrier to permit 

eligible service animals to accompany eligible veterans during travel, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 31, 2019 

Ms. CHENEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations 

to revise title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to require 

an air carrier to permit eligible service animals to accompany eligible veterans during travel, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Strengthening Support 

5 For Veterans with Service Animals Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4952 IH

1 SEC. 2. RULEMAKING FOR VETERANS TRAVELING WITH 

2 SERVICE DOGS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Transportation 

4 shall issue such regulations as are necessary to revise sec5 tion 382.117 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to 

6 require an air carrier to permit an eligible service animal 

7 to accompany an eligible veteran during travel if such vet8 eran provides— 

9 (1) the documentation described in subsection 

10 (e) of such section 382.117 (as in effect on the date 

11 of enactment of this Act); or 

12 (2) a valid veterans identification card issued by 

13 the Department of Veterans Affairs that contains a 

14 service-connected disability designation. 

15 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

16 (1) ELIGIBLE VETERAN.—The term ‘‘eligible 

17 veteran’’ means a veteran with a service-connected 

18 disability (as such terms are defined in section 101 

19 of title 38, United States Code). 

20 (2) ELIGIBLE SERVICE ANIMAL.—The term ‘‘el21 igible service animal’’ means a dog certified to serve 

22 as a service animal with credentials from an entity 

23 approved by the Secretary. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

_____________________ Division 

In re 

 Case No. 

 Debtor(s) 

 Chapter 

ORDER OF DESIGNATION 

 An order for relief under Title 11 U.S.C., Chapter ____ having been entered on 

the petition filed in this case on ___________________________; it is, therefore 

 ORDERED that ____________________________ is designated by the Court to 

perform the duties imposed upon the debtor by the Bankruptcy Code. This designation 

shall remain in effect during the entire pendency of this case until altered by order of this 

Court; and it is further 

 ORDERED that the Clerk mail a copy of this order to the designee, the attorney 

for the debtor, the trustee, and the United States Trustee. 

Date: ______________________ _____________________________ 

 United States Bankruptcy Judge 

 NOTICE OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER 

 ENTERED ON DOCKET 

 ____________________________ 

[ver. 12/03] 

Alexandria

WW Contractors, Inc.

18-12095-BFK

11

11

June 12, 2018

Warren Wiggins, President

Jun 15 2018 /s/ Brian F. Kenney

June 15, 2018

Case 18-12095-BFK Doc 4 Filed 06/15/18 Entered 06/15/18 11:24:58 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
§ 83.650 Grant. *Grant* means an award of financial assistance that, consistent with 31 U.S.C. 6304, is used to enter into a relationship— ( a ) The principal purpose of which is to transfer a thing of value to the recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States, rather than to acquire property or services for the Federal Government's direct benefit or use; and
( b ) In which substantial involvement is not expected between the Federal agency and the recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated by the award.
#### In the Matter of Louis Strand et al., Doing Business as Commercial Assistance Company, Judgment Creditors, Respondents, v. Harry Piser, Judgment Debtor. F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Company, Judgment Creditor, Appellant; Capitol Wine & Spirit Corporation et al., Judgment Creditors, Respondents.

All concur.
# STATEOFLOUISIANA



# COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT
CLARENCE D. LEWIS VERSUS LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS NO. 

### 2022 CW 0372


### JULY 

### 18, 

## 2022

In Re: 

### Clarence D. Lewis, 

### applying for 

### supervisory writs,



### 19th Judicial 

### District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Nos. 

### 528191, 716114. BEFORE: HOLDRIDGE, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. Relator, 

### Clarence D. 

### Lewis, seeks mandamus relief to order service of a second 

### step response 

### in ARP no. 

### 2004-0816, to complete 

### his appeal process and seeks to vacate the 

### ruling in 

### docket no. 

### 528191. However, 

### his petition 

### for 

### judicial review of the administrative 

### decision 

### in that matter was 

### dismissed without prejudice on March 

### 2, 2005. This court affirmed that 

### ruling. See Lewis v. Rogers, 

### 2005-1138 ( La. 

## App. 1st Cir. 6/9/06), 938 So.2d 1025. GH AHP WIL



### COURT OFAPPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
### §667. Game management supply depots; appropriations

Appropriations made for the administration, protection, maintenance, control, improvements, and development of wildlife sanctuaries, reservations, and refuges under the control of the Secretary of the Interior shall be available for the purchase, transportation, and handling of supplies and materials for distribution at cost from game management supply depots maintained by the Department of the Interior to projects specially provided for, and transfers between the appropriations for said purposes are authorized in order that the cost of supplies and materials, and transportation and handling thereof, drawn from central warehouses so maintained may be charged to the particular project benefited; and such supplies and materials as remain in said depots at the end of any fiscal year shall be continuously available for issuance during subsequent fiscal years and to be charged for by such transfers of funds between said appropriations for the fiscal year then current without decreasing in any way the appropriations made for that fiscal year: Provided, That supplies and materials shall not be purchased solely for the purpose of increasing the value of storehouse stock beyond reasonable requirements for any current fiscal year.

(June 24, 1936, ch. 764, 49 Stat. 1913; 1939 Reorg. Plan No. II, §4(e), (f), eff. July 1, 1939, 4 F.R. 2731, 53 Stat. 1433.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Former first sentence provided for establishment of a game management supply depot and laboratory at Pocatello, Idaho.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

See Transfer of Functions note set out under section 661 of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         1102833
<NAME>                        QUEST NET CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                                     3,046
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                              23,425
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           28,250
<PP&E>                                     278,404
<DEPRECIATION>                             132,608
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             1,003,022
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      2,655,279
<BONDS>                                    21,129
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                   16,390,721
<OTHER-SE>                                 (18,530,383)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               1,003,022
<SALES>                                    114,090
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           114,090
<CGS>                                      72,500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           380,904
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         2,642
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (269,456)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (269,456)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                               (269,456)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (.41)



</TABLE>
#### Empire City Lumber Company, Respondent, v. S. & I. Holding Company and Others, Defendants. Estate of S. Weinstein, Appellant.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Jenks, P. J., Carr, Rich, Staple-ton and Putnam, JJ.
### §§760h to 760l. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 760h, Pub. L. 87–173, §1, Aug. 30, 1961, 75 Stat. 409, provided for establishment of shellfisheries research center at Milford, Connecticut and included a statement of purpose.

Section 760i, Pub. L. 87–173, §2, Aug. 30, 1961, 75 Stat. 409, authorized appropriation of $1,325,000 to carry out section 760h of this title.

Section 760j, Pub. L. 87–580, §1, Aug. 9, 1962, 76 Stat. 356, related to propagation of disease resistant oysters, acquisition of brood stock, transfer and distribution, and for State sharing of costs.

Section 760k, Pub. L. 87–580, §2, Aug. 9, 1962, 76 Stat. 356, authorized grants to States for research and other necessary activities in development and propagation of disease-resistant strains of oysters and conditions of such grants.

Section 760l, Pub. L. 87–580, §3, Aug. 9, 1962, 76 Stat. 357, authorized appropriation of $100,000 to carry out sections 760j to 760l of this title.