alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(April 29, 1948.)

#### In the Matter of the Petition of Evalyn Slater et al., Appellants, against Harold V. Toohill et al., Constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Port Chester, et al., Respondents.

On argument, appeal from order dated March 26, 1948, dismissed, without costs. The order dated April 10, 1948, transferring the proceeding to this court for disposition, is reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to the zoning board of appeals of the village of Port Chester for hearing *de novo.*Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.
#### § 6.82 Waiver of fee.

The system manager shall make one copy of a record, up to 300 pages, available without charge to a requestor who is an employee of FEMA. The system manager may waive the fee requirement for any other requestor if the cost of collecting the fee is an unduly large part of, or greater than, the fee, or when furnishing the record without charge conforms to generally established business custom or is in the public interest.

[44 FR 50287, Aug. 27, 1979, as amended at 52 FR 13679, Apr. 24, 1987]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEvaluation of energy absorption of new concepts of aircraft composite subfloor intersectionsForty-one composite aircraft subfloor intersection specimens were tested to determine the effects of geometry and material on the energy absorbing behavior, failure characteristics, and post-crush structural integrity of the specimens. The intersections were constructed of twelve ply + or - 45 sub 6 laminates of either Kevlar 49/934 or AS-4/934 graphite-epoxy in heights of 4, 8, and 12 inches. The geometry of the specimens varied in the designs of the intersection attachment angle. Four different geometries were tested.Document ID19900017507Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsJones, Lisa E.*(PRC Kentron, Inc., Hampton VA., United States)*Carden, Huey D.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1989Subject CategoryAircraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.60:2951L-16628NASA-TP-2951Accession Number90N26823Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-63-01-11Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900017507.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Exhibit
      32.1




Ener1,
      Inc.


1540
      Broadway, Suite 25C


New
      York,
      New York 10036




August
      13, 2008





Securities
      and Exchange Commission


100
      F
      Street, NE


Washington,
      DC 20549





Re:
      Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Sec.
      1350





Dear
      Ladies and Gentlemen:





In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ener1, Inc.,
      for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission, I, Dr. Peter Novak, Chief Executive Officer of Ener1, Inc., hereby
      certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1)
              such
                  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ener1, Inc., for the quarter ended
                  June
                  30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                  or 15(d) of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
                  and




2)
              the
                  information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
                  Ener1,
                  Inc., for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, fairly presents, in
                  all
                  material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
                  of
                  Ener1, Inc.


/s/
                Dr. Peter NovakDr.
                Peter Novak
              Chief
                Executive Officer, Director
              (Principal
                Executive Officer and
              Duly
                Authorized 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
      required by Section 906, has been provided to Ener1, Inc. and will be
      retained by Ener1, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.





This
      certification is being “furnished” as Exhibit 32.1 to Ener1, Inc.’s
      quarterly report and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject
      to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by
      reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act,
      except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such a
      filing.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 97-141 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Thursday, September 25, 1997)

NRC SCHEDULES WORKSHOP IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND

ON “RESTRICTED RELEASE” DECOMMISSIONING PROCEDURES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will conduct a workshop October 15 to

receive public comments on draft guidance that the NRC is developing on how to meet

Commission requirements for decommissioning nuclear facilities under what are known

as “restricted release” provisions.

The workshop will begin at 9 a.m. and end at about 5 p.m. at the NRC’s ACRS

meeting room at Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

Members of the public may also participate in the workshop via video- and audioconference at the NRC’s Region II office at the Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth

Street, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia, and Region III office at 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle,

Illinois.

Video conferencing will be available in the Atlanta office from 9 a.m. through 12

noon (EDT), and audio capabilities from 1 p.m. through 5 p.m. In the Lisle office, video

conferencing will be available from 12 noon through 4 p.m. (CDT) and audio capabilities

from 8 a.m. through 11 a.m.

A copy of the working paper to be discussed may be obtained electronically at

the NRC’s Website under the topic “Final Rule for License Termination” at

http://techconf.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/topics. A copy is also available from the NRC Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street , NW, Washington, DC 20555; telephone: 202/634-

3273.

Comments on the working paper may be posted electronically through the

Website or may be mailed to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. They should be submitted by

November 30.
The NRC issued a regulation providing criteria for radiological cleanup of

contaminated sites on July 21. Under the rule, release of a property following cleanup

may be either “unrestricted,” in which case it could be used for any purpose, or

“restricted,” so that it could not be used for certain purposes, such as residential

housing. The guidance to be discussed at the workshop on restricted release will

eventually be incorporated into an NRC regulatory guide, “Demonstrating Compliance

with the Radiological Criteria for License Termination.”

###
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

JENNIFER CICCONE, individually

and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiffs, CASE NO.: 0:20-cv-61127-RS

v.

PREFERRED APARTMENT

COMMUNITIES, INC.,

Defendant. 

__________________________________/

 AGREED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR 

DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Plaintiff, by and through her undersigned counsel, and hereby moves 

the Court to extend the time for Defendant to file its response to the Complaint. In support 

thereof, the Plaintiff states as follows:

1. Plaintiff filed her complaint on June 16, 2020 (Doc. 1).

2. Defendant’s answer is due July 7, 2020. 

3. Defendant’s General Counsel is requesting additional time to investigate the 

claims and to obtain local counsel. 

4. Plaintiff's counsel is agreeable to a 21-day extension of time for Defendant to 

respond to the Complaint.

5. This request is made with the consent of Defendant in compliance with Local Rule 

7.1(a)(3). 

Case 0:20-cv-61127-RS Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2020 Page 1 of 2
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the time within which the Defendant 

may respond to the Complaint be extended up to and including July 28, 2020.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 6, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing has 

been filed via the Court’s CM/ECF system to all parties of record with a courtesy copy to

Kate McDonald Sergeant, General Counsel for Defendant via email. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Heather H. Jones

Heather H. Jones, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0118974

William “Billy” Peerce Howard, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0103330

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC

4030 Henderson Blvd.

Tampa, FL 33629

Telephone: (813) 500-1500, ext. 205

Facsimile: (813) 435-2369

Heather@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com

Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 0:20-cv-61127-RS Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2020 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 115
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 115 appear at 72 FR 50038, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 115.30 Submission of Surety's guarantee application. ( a ) *Legal effect of application.* By submitting an application to SBA for a bond guarantee, the Prior Approval Surety certifies that the Principal meets the eligibility requirements set forth in § 115.13 and that the underwriting standards set forth in § 115.15 have been met.
( b ) *SBA's determination.* SBA's approval or decline of a guarantee application is made in writing by an authorized SBA officer. The officer may provide telephone notice before the Prior Approval Surety receives SBA's guarantee approval form if the officer has already signed the form. In the event of a conflict between the telephone notice and the written form, the written form controls.
( c ) *Reconsideration-appeal of SBA determination.* A Prior Approval Surety may request reconsideration of a decline from the SBA officer who made the decision. If the decision on reconsideration is negative, the Surety may appeal to an individual designated by the D/SG. If the decision is again adverse, the Surety may appeal to the D/SG, who will make the final decision.
( d ) *Prior Approval Agreement.* To apply for a bond guarantee, a Prior Approval Surety must submit a *Surety Bond Guarantee Agreement* (SBA Form 990) and select one of the following application types: ( 1 ) *Regular.* A Prior Approval Surety may complete and submit a *Surety Bond Guarantee Agreement* (SBA Form 990) indicating a Regular application type to SBA for each Bid Bond or Final Bond. This Form must be approved by SBA prior to the Surety's Execution of the bond. The guarantee fees owed in connection with Final Bonds must be paid in accordance with § 115.32.
( 2 ) *Quick Bond Agreement* — ( i ) *General procedures.* Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section, a Prior Approval Surety may complete and submit a SBA Form 990 indicating a Quick Bond Agreement application type for each Bid Bond or Final Bond. This form must be approved by SBA prior to the Surety's Execution of the bond. The Quick Bond application type is used only for contract amounts that do not exceed $500,000 at the time of application. The guarantee fees owed in connection with Final Bonds must be paid in accordance with § 115.32.
( ii ) *Exclusions.* The Quick Bond application type may not be used under the following circumstances: ( A ) The Principal has previously defaulted on any contract or has had any claims or complaints filed against it with any court or administrative agency;
( B ) Work on the Contract commenced before a bond was Executed;
( C ) The time for completion of the Contract exceeds 12 months;
( D ) The Contract includes a provision for liquidated damages that exceed $2,500 per day;
( E ) The Contract involves asbestos abatement, hazardous waste removal, or timber sales; or
( F ) The bond would be issued under a surety bonding line approved under § 115.33.
[61 FR 3271, Jan. 31, 1996, as amended at 77 FR 41665, July 16, 2012; 79 FR 2087, Jan. 13, 2014; 82 FR 39501, Aug. 21, 2017; 87 FR 48084, Aug. 8, 2022; 88 FR 24473, Apr. 21, 2023]
#### § 362.2 Definitions.

As used in this part—

*Gifts of property* means a gratuitous, voluntary transfer or conveyance of ownership in property by one person to another without any consideration, including transfer by donation, devise or bequest.

*Gifts of services* means a gratuitous, voluntary offer of labor or professional work by one person to another without any compensation for that labor or professional work.

*Program Agencies* means the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the United States Geological Survey, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

*Property* means real or personal property, tangible or intangible, including money, certificates of stocks, bonds, or other evidence of value.

*Services* means labor or professional work performed for the benefit of another or at another's command.

*Solicit* means to endeavor to obtain by asking or pleading.
§ 60.24 Planning considerations for flood-related erosion-prone areas. The planning process for communities identified under part 65 of this subchapter as containing Zone E or which indicate in their applications for flood insurance coverage pursuant to § 59.22 of this subchapter that they have flood-related erosion areas should include— ( a ) The importance of directing future developments to areas not exposed to flood-related erosion;
( b ) The possibility of reserving flood-related erosion-prone areas for open space purposes;
( c ) The coordination of all planning for the flood-related erosion-prone areas with planning at the State and Regional levels, and with planning at the level of neighboring communities;
( d ) Preventive action in E zones, including setbacks, shore protection works, relocating structures in the path of flood-related erosion, and community acquisition of flood-related erosion-prone properties for public purposes;
( e ) Consistency of plans for flood-related erosion-prone areas with comprehensive plans at the state, regional and local levels.
#### In the Matter of Anna Lombardo et al., Respondents, against Paul L. Ross et al., Constituting the Temporary City Housing Rent Commission of the City of New York, Appellants.

Order annulling determination of the temporary city housing rent commission, which denied petitioners’ application for a certificate of eviction, and directing the issuance of such a certificate, reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and the petition dismissed, without costs, upon the authority of *Matter of Wattach,*v. *Boss (post,*p. 1021, decided herewith). Lewis, P. J., Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur; Wenzel, J., concurs in result.
#### Tarza R. NELSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KIM; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 05-15770.

D.C. No. CV-02-06027-OWW/DLB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 18, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 21, 2006.

Tarza R. Nelson, Coalinga, CA, pro se.

Before FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Tarza R. Nelson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against prison officials, alleging violation of the Eighth Amendment in the treatment of his carpal tunnel syndrome. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Nelson’s Eighth Amendment claim as Nelson faded to allege that the delay in his carpal tunnel surgery led to further injury. *See McGuckin v. Smith,*974 F.2d *4961050, 1060 (9th Cir.1992) (overruled on other grounds by *WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller,*104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.1997)). The district court also properly determined that defendants’ alleged failure to prescribe medicine stronger than motrin did not constitute deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. *See Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir.2004).

Nelson’s remaining contentions are without merit.

AFFIRMED

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### **CHAPTER 4—VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION OF PERSONS INJURED IN INDUSTRY**
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Lucy Gordon, Respondent, against John J. Casale, Inc., Appellant. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

*735Foster, P. J., Brewster, Deyo, Santry and Bergan, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 134
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 134.801 Scope of rules. ( a ) The rules of practice in this subpart H apply to the OHA appeal under the Employee Dispute Resolution Process (EDRP). Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 37 71 sets out the EDRP. It is available at *http://www.sba.gov/tools/resourcelibrary/sops/index.html* or through OHA's Web site *http://www.sba.gov/oha*).
( b ) The following rules, located in subparts A and B of this part, also apply to OHA appeals under the EDRP: ( 1 ) Definitions (§ 134.101);
( 2 ) Jurisdiction of OHA (§ 134.102(r) only);
( 3 ) Scope of the rules in this subpart B (§ 134.201(a), (b)(6), and (c) only);
( 4 ) Commencement of cases (§ 134.202(d) only, on deadlines and how to count days);
( 5 ) Filing and service requirements (§ 134.204);
( 6 ) Amendments and supplemental pleadings (§ 134.207);
( 7 ) Requirement of signature (§ 134.209);
( 8 ) Motions (§ 134.211);
( 9 ) Summary decision (§ 134.212); and
( 10 ) Sanctions (§ 134.219).
[75 FR 47443, Aug. 6, 2010, as amended at 82 FR 25507, June 2, 2017]
### **CHAPTER 6—CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS**

Sec.
190 to 190c. Repealed.
190d.
Legislative review by standing committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
190e.
Repealed.
190f.
General appropriation bills.
190g.
Nonconsideration of certain private bills and resolutions.
190h to 190k. Repealed.
190 l.
Private claims pending before Congress; taking of testimony.
190m.
Subpoena for taking testimony; compensation of officers and witnesses; return of depositions.
191.
Oaths to witnesses.
192.
Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers.
193.
Privilege of witnesses.
194.
Certification of failure to testify or produce; grand jury action.
194a.
Request by Congressional committees to officers or employees of Federal departments, agencies, etc., concerned with foreign countries or multilateral organizations for expression of views and opinions.
194b.
Omitted.
195.
Fees of witnesses in District of Columbia.
195a.
Restriction on payment of witness fees or travel and subsistence expenses to persons subpenaed by Congressional committees.
195b.
Fees for witnesses requested to appear before Majority Policy Committee or Minority Policy Committee.
196.
Senate resolutions for investigations; limit of cost.
197.
Compensation of employees.
198.
Adjournment.
199.
Member of commission, board, etc., appointed by President pro tempore of Senate; recommendation process; applicability.
§ 208.41 Administrative allowance. ( a ) The administrative allowance is intended to defray costs of the following activities, to the extent provided in paragraph (b) of this section: ( 1 ) Collecting expenditure information from Sponsoring Agencies and Participating Agencies;
( 2 ) Compiling and summarizing cost records and reimbursement claims;
( 3 ) Duplicating cost records and reimbursement claims; and
( 4 ) Submitting reimbursement claims, including mailing, transmittal, and related costs.
( b ) The administrative allowance will be equal to the following: ( 1 ) If total allowable costs are less than $100,000, 3 percent of total allowable costs included in the reimbursement claim;
( 2 ) If total allowable costs are $100,000 or more but less than $1,000,000, $3,000 plus 2 percent of costs included in the reimbursement claim greater than $100,000;
( 3 ) If total allowable costs are $1,000,000 or more, $21,000 plus 1 percent of costs included in the reimbursement claim greater than $1,000,000.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 97-119 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

(Tuesday, August 12, 1997)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received the attached

report from its Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste. The report,

in the form of a letter, provides comments on the NRC program to

predict risk from igneous activity at the proposed high-level

waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Copies of the reports are available through the NRC's Office

of Public Affairs, the NRC's Internet Homepage

(http://www.nrc.gov/ACRSACNW) and the Public Document Room in

Washington, D.C. To access the letter on the NRC Internet

Homepage use the "Search" function to look for "maturity."

#