alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(February 14, 1949.)

#### Rose Goldstein et al., Appellants, *v.*Reiss & Fishman, Inc., et al., Respondents.

*653
      *Per Curiara.*

We think that the decision of the trial court was proper and no material error committed in the receipt of evidence. The form of the judgment appears to be substantially correct in view of the failure to demand the return of the chattel in accordance with the provisions of sections 1119 and 1124 of the Civil Practice Act (see *Hoffman*v. *Hoffman,*266 App. Div. 724; *Beck*v. *Schneider,*84 Misc. 23).

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs to the respondents.

Peck, P. J.

(dissenting). In my opinion defendants’ testimony did not warrant setting aside the bill of sale, which was an unqualified and complete document of sale, and adopting a version of the transaction at variance with the bill. Defendants’ version, if accepted, would not explain the giving of such a bill. If the transaction were as defendants contend, and there was any legitimate tax basis for it, the bill of sale would still have shown the correct price and partial payment rather than be made to appear, what it clearly is on its face, a completed transaction for a total price of $6,000. Defendants’ testimony strongly suggests, at best, an arrangement of false appearances to affect the tax incidents of the sale. I do not think defendants should be permitted to impeach their document in this way. I dissent and vote to modify the judgment to reduce it to the amount of $397.50, with interest and costs.

Glennon, Dore and Callahan, JJ., concur in *Per Curiam*opinion; Peck, P. J., dissents in opinion in which Shientag, J., concurs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

July 26, 2005

U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission450 Fifth Street, N. W.Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The certification set forth below is being submittedto the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complyingwith Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.This certification is not to be deemed to be filed pursuant to the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and does not constitute a part of the Annual Report on Form 10-K(the “Report”) accompanying this letter and is not to be incorporated byreference into any filing, whether made before or after the date hereof,regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

I, J. WilliamHolden, III , the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofMirant Americas Generation, LLC (the “Company”), certify that, subject to thequalifications noted below, to the best of my knowledge:

1.                the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Mirant Americas Generation,LLC.
| Name:    | /s/ J. WILLIAM  HOLDEN, III                    |   |
|----------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| * * | *Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Mirant Americas Generation, LLC andwill be retained by Mirant Americas Generation, LLC and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----

**Supplemental Information to be Furnished with ReportsFiled Pursuant toSection 15(d) of the Act by Registrants Which Have Not RegisteredSecurities Pursuant to Section 12 of the Act**

No annual report or proxy materials has been sent tosecurities holders and no such report or proxy material is to be furnished tosecurities holders subsequent to the filing of the annual report on this Form 10-K.

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY ELEV

 497.21

 496.73

 496.33

 495.88

 495.40

 494.90

 494.40

 493.91

 493.33

 494.74

 494.52

 493.98

 493.41

 492.86

 492.28

 491.73

 491.16

 490.58

 491.60

 491.01

 490.42

 489.84

 489.23

 490.55

 490.10

 489.54

 489.03

 488.48

 487.89

 487.29

 52,367

 51,874

 51,466

 51,008

 50,526

 50,025

 49,531

 49,048

 48,484

 49,867

 49,650

 49,117

 48,562

 48,029

 47,474

 46,952

 46,415

 45,875

 46,829

 46,273

 45,727

 45,193

 44,638

 45,847

 45,431

 44,920

 44,456

 43,962

 43,434

 42,903

STORAGE

-507

-493

-408

-458

-482

-501

-494

-483

-564

+1,383

-217

-533

-555

-533

-555

-522

-537

-540

+954

-556

-546

-534

-555

+1,209

-416

-511

-464

-494

-528

-531

CHANGE

7

15

53

29

21

9

12

16

7

1,010

178

15

10

18

6

25

17

16

770

13

20

23

7

894

70

17

40

31

13

13

INFLOW

 259

 250

 256

 260

 261

 259

 259

 258

 291

 311

 286

 284

 289

 285

 284

 287

 285

 287

 287

 292

 292

 288

 285

 283

 278

 274

 273

 278

 277

 279

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

 4

 14

 3

 0

 3

 3

 2

 2

 0

 2

 1

 0

 1

 2

 2

 1

 3

 1

 2

 1

 3

 4

 2

 1

 2

 1

 1

 2

 2

 2

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

NOVEMBER 2004 TULLOCH RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: 12/02/2004

RES.

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -9,971 3,375 8,337 0 0 67

ACRE-FEET -9,971 6,694 16,536 0 0 133

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 16,536

SPILL 0 16,536

 52,874

OUTLET 0

TOTAL 

NEW

MELONES

RELEASE (1)

 27

 21

 14

 14

 14

 14

 14

 14

 14

 905

 138

 14

 14

 14

 14

 14

 14

 14

 718

 14

 14

 14

 14

 863

 25

 14

 14

 14

 14

 14

 3,019

 5,988

*COMPUTED INFLOW IS SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES, AND

EVAPORATION.
§ 2806.25 How may I make rental payments when land encumbered by my perpetual linear grant (other than an easement issued under § 2807.15(b)) is being transferred out of Federal ownership? ( a ) *One-time payment option for existing perpetual grants.* If you have a perpetual grant and the land your grant encumbers is being transferred out of Federal ownership, you may choose to make a one-time rental payment. The BLM will determine the one-time payment for a perpetual grant by dividing the current annual rent for the subject property by an overall capitalization rate calculated from market data, where the overall capitalization rate is the difference between a market yield rate and a percent annual rent increase as described in the formula in paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (3) of this section. The formula for this calculation is: One-time Rental Payment = Annual Rent/ (Y−CR), where: (1) Annual Rent = Current Annual Rent Applicable to the Subject Property from the Per Acre Rent Schedule; (2) Y = Yield Rate from the Per Acre Rent Schedule (5.27 percent); and (3) CR = Annual Percent Change in Rent as Determined by the Most Recent 10-Year Average of the difference in the IPD-GDP Index from January of one year to January of the following year.
( b ) *One-time payment for grants converted to perpetual grants under § 2807.15(b) .* If the land your grant encumbers is being transferred out of Federal ownership, and you request a conversion of your grant to a perpetual right-of-way grant, you must make a one-time rental payment in accordance with § 2806.25(a).
( c ) In paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the annual rent is determined from the Per Acre Rent Schedule (see § 2806.20(c)) as updated under § 2806.22. However, the per acre zone value and zone number used in this annual rental determination will be based on the per acre land value from acceptable market information or the appraisal report, if any, for the land transfer action and not the county average per acre land and building value from the NASS Census. You may also submit an appraisal report on your own initiative in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.
( d ) When no acceptable market information is available and no appraisal report has been completed for the land transfer action or when the BLM requests it, you must: ( 1 ) Prepare an appraisal report using Federal appraisal standards, at your expense, that explains how you estimated the land value per acre, the rate of return, and the encumbrance factor; and
( 2 ) Submit the appraisal report for consideration by the BLM State Director with jurisdiction over the lands encumbered by your authorization.
[73 FR 65072, Oct. 31, 2008]
#### The J. A. Brennan Drilling Company v. John H. Winder.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with ten dollars costs. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Clarke, Scott and Dowling, JJ.
§ 2806.51 Grant and lease rate adjustments. ( a ) The BLM will adjust your acreage rent and MW capacity fee over the course of your authorization as described in these regulations. For new grants or leases, you may choose either the standard rate adjustment method (see § 2806.52(a)(5) and (b)(3) for grants; see § 2806.54(a)(4) or (c) for leases) or the scheduled rate adjustment method (see § 2806.52(d) for grants; see § 2806.54(d) for leases). Once you select a rate adjustment method, that method will be fixed until you renew your grant or lease (see § 2807.22).
( b ) For new grants or leases, if you select the scheduled rate adjustment method you must notify the BLM of your decision in writing. Your decision must be received by the BLM before your grant or lease is issued. If you do not select the scheduled rate adjustment method, the standard rate adjustment method will apply.
( c ) If you hold a right-of-way for solar or wind energy development that is in effect prior to July 1, 2024, you may either request that the BLM apply the annual rent and fee set forth in § 2806.52 or use the rate methodology applicable to your authorization immediately prior to this rule. If you wish to use the annual rent and fee set forth in § 2806.52, your request must be received by the BLM before July 1, 2026. The BLM will continue to apply the rate in effect immediately prior to this rule unless it receives your request to use the rate adjustments in this part. A request to change your rate methodology will include your agreement to a re-issuance of the grant or lease with updated Terms and Conditions found under this part, pursuant to § 2807.20(f).
[81 FR 92217, Dec. 19, 2016, as amended at 89 FR 35680, May 1, 2024]
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with the  annual  Report of  Foresight  Specialists,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Kevin Ericksteen,  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:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all  material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



                                                  /s/ Kevin Ericksteen
                                                  ---------------------------
Date: May 11, 2006                                    Kevin Ericksteen
                                                      Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT
23





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





We hereby
consent to the use of our report dated November 4, 2009, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of EV Innovations, Inc. for the fiscal years
ended July 31, 2009 and 2008 incorporated by reference in  the filing
of the Registration Statement on Form S-8 and the Post-Effective Amendment to
such Registration Statement of  EV Innovations, Inc. for its  2006
Restricted Stock Plan, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 23 and April 26, 2006, respectively, and in the filing of the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 for its 2009 Restricted Stock Plan, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2009.







/s/ WIENER, GOODMAN &
COMPANY, P.C.





Weiner,
Goodman & Company, P.C.





Dated:
November 10, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 29, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58175-58176]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-21748]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 2003N-0565]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; Generic Food and Drug Administration 
Rapid Response Surveys

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Generic Food and Drug 
Administration Rapid Response Surveys'' has been

[[Page 58176]]

approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JonnaLynn P. Capezzuto, Office of 
Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug 
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4659.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of May 6, 2004, (69 
FR 25404), the agency announced that the proposed information 
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 
U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the 
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0500. 
The approval expires on February 28, 2006. A copy of the supporting 
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet 
at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets.

    Dated: September 22, 2004.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-21748 Filed 9-28-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 40201 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Humberto Cabrera, Jr.,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:09

- CR

- 555

- 1

Before **King, Higginson,** and **Willett,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Humberto Cabrera, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States
v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cabrera has not filed a response. We

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 10, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-40201 Document: 00516502200 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/10/2022No. 22

- 40201

2 have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appell ate review. Accordingly, counsel’s
motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See
**5th Cir. R.** 42.2

. Case: 22-40201 Document: 00516502200 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/10/2022
Presidential Documents

56923

Federal Register 

Vol. 69, No. 183

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

Title 3— 

The President 

Notice of September 21, 2004

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism 

On September 23, 2001, by Executive Order 13224, I declared a national 

emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or 

support terrorism, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers 

Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706). I took this action to deal with the unusual 

and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy 

of the United States constituted by the grave acts of terrorism and threats 

of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the terrorist attacks 

in New York, in Pennsylvania, and against the Pentagon committed on 

September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of further 

attacks against United States nationals or the United States. Because the 

actions of these persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national 

security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, the national 

emergency declared on September 23, 2001, and the measures adopted on 

that date to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond 

September 23, 2004. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the 

National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year 

the national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to 

commit, or support terrorism. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted 

[FR Doc. 04–21484

Filed 9–21–04; 12:47 pm] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 

to the Congress.

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

September 21, 2004. 

W
§ 30.129 May a judge reopen a probate case to correct errors and omissions? ( a ) On the written request of an interested party, or on the basis of the judge's own order, at any time, a judge has the authority to reopen a probate case to: ( 1 ) Determine the correct identity of the original allottee, or any heir or devisee;
( 2 ) Determine whether different persons received the same allotment;
( 3 ) Decide whether trust patents covering allotments of land were issued incorrectly or to a non-existent person; or
( 4 ) Determine whether more than one allotment of land had been issued to the same person under different names and numbers or through other errors in identification.
( b ) The judge will notify interested parties if a probate case is reopened and will conduct appropriate proceedings under this part.
[73 FR 67289, Nov. 13, 2008. Redesignated at 86 FR 72084, Dec. 20, 2021]
### §397. Leases of lands for grazing or mining

Where lands are occupied by Indians who have bought and paid for the same, and which lands are not needed for farming or agricultural purposes, and are not desired for individual allotments, the same may be leased by authority of the council speaking for such Indians, for a period not to exceed five years for grazing, or ten years for mining purposes in such quantities and upon such terms and conditions as the agent in charge of such reservation may recommend, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior.

(Feb. 28, 1891, ch. 383, §3, 26 Stat. 795.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
§ 2.288 What criteria will the Department consider in responding to my *Touhy* Request? In deciding whether to grant your *Touhy* Request, the appropriate Department official will consider: ( a ) Your ability to obtain the testimony or records from another source;
( b ) The appropriateness of the employee testimony and record production under the relevant regulations of procedure and substantive law, including the FOIA or the Privacy Act; and
( c ) Our ability to: ( 1 ) Conduct our official business unimpeded;
( 2 ) Maintain impartiality in conducting our business;
( 3 ) Minimize the possibility that we will become involved in issues that are not related to our mission or programs;
( 4 ) Avoid spending public employee's time for private purposes;
( 5 ) Avoid the negative cumulative effect of granting similar requests;
( 6 ) Ensure that privileged or protected matters remain confidential; and
( 7 ) Avoid undue burden on us.
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 11

- 00 691

- CV

IN RE Robert Lee GILL

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 5, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On September 19, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, asking for an

“emergency injunction.” The court has conside red relator’s petition and is of the opinion that

relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is

DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010

- TA1

- 03549 , styled Bexar County, et al. v. Robert Lee Gill, Jr.

, in the

73rd Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ren é e F. McElhaney presiding.
1 This sec tion of the Rules of Crim inal Procedure provides for an appeal, after a guilt y plea, of a cert if ie d quest io n of l aw. 

# FILED September 10, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COU RT OF CR IMINA L A PPEA LS OF TENN ESSEE

AT JAC KSON MA Y 1997 SESSION

STA TE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) C.C.A . NO. 02C01-9 603-CR-00083 Appellee, ) ) SHELBY COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. JA MES C. BEA SLEY, JR., CLEOPHES CARTER, ) JUDGE ) Appellant. ) (Cert ifie d Que stio n of Law)

CONCURR ING OPINION

I concur fully in the results reached by the author in his opinion. However, I concur in results only

because ofthe defendant’s failure to comply w ith the guid elines set out in State v. Preston , 759 S.W.2d 6 47 ( Tenn. 1988 ), a nd r eaffi rmed in St ate v. Pendergrass , 937 S.W .2d 834 (Tenn. 199 6). I note that the defendant was represented bycounsel at the time his plea w as entered, and thetrial co urt expres sly adv ised the defendant “if you deci de you w ant to appeal your matter: you have aright todo so under the guidelines

of 37 (b)(i).” T his advic e by the tr ial judge was after the defendant had previouslyindicated his desire to appeal the search i ssue and his desire to represent hims elf. The transcri pt also indic ates that the defendant had entered, on the g uilty pl ea form, “37(b)(2 )(i).” 1

The defendant was represented by counsel at thetime he entered hi s plea but chose to represent himself on appeal. There is no order in the record i ndicating t hat2

a certified q uestion was reserve d at the time of his plea, even tho ugh th is matter w as discussed and the trial judge adv ised the defendant it would have to be done timely and prop erly. For this reason, I w ould dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with the req uir ement s of Preston
.

______________________________ JOHN H. PEA Y, Judge