alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Carlos P. Tucker, Respondent, *v.*Charles E. Leland, Impleaded, etc., Appellant.

An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment for deficiency in a foreclosure suit, where the motion is based upon the fact that by a clerical err or the name of the defendant against whom such judgment is rendered was omitted from the prayer for judgment for deficiency in the copy of the complaint attached to the judgment-roll, is not reviewable here; it involves simply questions of practice.

So, also, an order denying a motion to set aside judgment of foreclosure, and sale because ofnon-j oinder of aparty defendant, is not reviewable here.

(Argued October 1, 1878;

decided November 12, 1878.)

Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the third judicial department, reversing an order of Special Term which set aside a judgment for deficiency against defendant Leland, and which vacated the whole judgment of foreclosure and sale.

The former part of the order was granted because, by clerical error, the name of Leland was omitted from the prayer for judgment for deficiency in the copy of complaint attached to the judgment-roll, the latter part on the ground that one Flynn, who was the owner of the equity of redemption, whose deed was not recorded, was not made a party defendant.

*Henry*Smith, for appellant.

*William A.*McKinney, for respondent.

The order of the General Term was not appealable for the reason that the alleged irregularity in the judgment-roll was at most a clerical error. (*Whitney*v. Townsend, 67 N. Y., 40; *Foot*v. Lathrop, 41 id., 358; *McCoun*v. *N. Y. C. and H. R. R. R. Co., 50*id., 176; *Cushmun*v. Benedict, id., 298; *Baker*v. *Home L. Ins. Co.,*63 id., 630.) An order refusing to set aside a foreclosure sale is not appealable. *(Crane*v. *Stiger,*58 N. Y., 625; *Hale*v. *Clauson,*60 id., 339; *McReynolds*v. *Munns,*2 Keyes, 214; *Dows*v. *Congdon,*28 N. Y., 122; *Hazleton*v. *Wakeman,*3 How., 357.)

*187
      *Per Curiam.*

Whatever merit there may have been at the Special or General Term in the questions involved in the order appealed from, it is quite clear that .they are questions of practice only, and not reviewable in this court. Whether the clerical error, in the copy of the complaint, attached to the judgment-roll, omitting the defendant Lcland's name from the prayer for judgment for deficiency, should be disregarded, or be amended, or the judgment set aside, were questions exclusively in the first instance for the Special Term, and on appeal for the General Term. These tribunals it seems differed, and we cannot interfere. The General Term having the superior authority must prevail. The other questions are of the same character.

The order was not appealable, and the appeal múst be dismissed.

All concur, except Miller and Earl, JJ., absent at argument.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1691 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1691

 To expedite the granting of posthumous citizenship to members of the 
                      United States Armed Forces.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 9, 2003

 Mr. Isakson (for himself, Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, 
    Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr. Burns, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Norwood, Mr. 
    Kingston, Mr. Marshall, Ms. Majette, and Mr. Lewis of Georgia) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To expedite the granting of posthumous citizenship to members of the 
                      United States Armed Forces.

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

SECTION 1. GRANTING OF POSTHUMOUS CITIZENSHIP TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 
              FORCES.

    (a) Requests and Documentation for Posthumous Citizenship.--Section 
329A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1440-1) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
    ``(c) Requests for Posthumous Citizenship.--A request for the 
granting of posthumous citizenship to a person described in subsection 
(b) shall be filed on behalf of that person by the Secretary of Defense 
or the Secretary's designee with the Bureau of Citizenship and 
Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security immediately 
upon the death of that person.''; and
            (2) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
    ``(d) Documentation of Posthumous Citizenship.--If the Director of 
the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services approves the request 
referred to in subsection (c), the Director shall send to the next-of-
kin of the person who is granted citizenship, a suitable document which 
states that the United States considers the person to have been a 
citizen of the United States at the time of the person's death.''.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 329A(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1440-1(a)) is amended by 
striking ``the Attorney General'' each place that term appears and 
inserting ``the Secretary of Homeland Security''.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 351
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 351 appear at 78 FR 62418, Oct. 22, 2013.

Editorial Note on Part 351
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 351 appear at 89 FR 20832, Mar. 25, 2024.

§ 351.509 Direct taxes. ( a ) *Benefit* — ( 1 ) *Exemption or remission of taxes.* In the case of a program that provides for a full or partial exemption or remission of a direct tax (*e.g.,* an income tax), or a reduction in the base used to calculate a direct tax, a benefit exists to the extent that the tax paid by a firm as a result of the program is less than the tax the firm would have paid in the absence of the program.
( 2 ) *Deferral of taxes.* In the case of a program that provides for a deferral of direct taxes, a benefit exists to the extent that appropriate interest charges are not collected. Normally, a deferral of direct taxes will be treated as a government-provided loan in the amount of the tax deferred, according to the methodology described in § 351.505. The Secretary will use a short-term interest rate as the benchmark for tax deferrals of one year or less. The Secretary will use a long-term interest rate as the benchmark for tax deferrals of more than one year.
( b ) *Time of receipt of benefit* — ( 1 ) *Exemption or remission of taxes.* In the case of a full or partial exemption or remission of a direct tax, the Secretary normally will consider the benefit as having been received on the date on which the recipient firm would otherwise have had to pay the taxes associated with the exemption or remission. Normally, this date will be the date on which the firm filed its tax return.
( 2 ) *Deferral of taxes.* In the case of a tax deferral of one year or less, the Secretary normally will consider the benefit as having been received on the date on which the deferred tax becomes due. In the case of a multi-year deferral, the Secretary normally will consider the benefit as having been received on the anniversary date(s) of the deferral.
( c ) *Allocation of benefit to a particular time period.* The Secretary normally will allocate (expense) the benefit of a full or partial exemption, remission, or deferral of a direct tax to the year in which the benefit is considered to have been received under paragraph (b) of this section.
( d ) *Benefit not tied to particular markets or products.* If a program provides for a full or partial exemption, reduction, credit, or remission of an income tax, the Secretary normally will consider any benefit to be not tied with respect to a particular market under § 351.525(b)(4) or to a particular product under § 351.525(b)(5).
[63 FR 65407, Nov. 25, 1998, as amended at 89 FR 20841, Mar. 25, 2024]
### §2312. Comments on certain changes in operations of reservoirs

Before the Secretary may make changes in the operation of any reservoir which will result in or require a reallocation of storage space in such reservoir or will significantly affect any project purpose, the Secretary shall provide an opportunity for public review and comment.

(Pub. L. 100–676, §5, Nov. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 4022.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988, and not as part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 which comprises this chapter.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### "Secretary" Defined

Secretary means the Secretary of the Army, see section 2 of Pub. L. 100–676, set out as a note under section 2201 of this title.
AAM-12-448-E July 9, 2012

Exemption No. 10581 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0690

Mr. Curt Drumm

President

Lakeshore Aviation 1815 Freedom Way Manitowoe, WI 54220

Dear Mr. Drumm:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated June 12, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Lakeshore Aviation for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of FederalRegulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow Lakeshore Aviation to cover its safetysensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Lakeshore Aviation.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two drug and alcohol testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of2

safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Lakeshore Aviation an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Lakeshore Aviation to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations

described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Lakeshore Aviation are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the same auspices of the Lakeshore Aviation part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on July 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/S/ Frederick E Tilton, M.D. Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
BEFORE THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

__________________________________________ ) Motion of ) ) DELTA AIR LINES, INC. ) Docket DOT-OST-2007-28567 NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. ) -2004-18469 ) for a dormancy waiver ) (U.S.-China Combination Frequencies) ) __________________________________________)

ANSWER OF UNITED AIR LINES, INC.

Communications with respect to th is document should be sent to:

MARY BARNICLE Manager – International & Regulatory

Affairs UNITED AIR LINES, INC. 77 West Wacker Drive, HDQIZ Chicago, IL 60601 JULIE OETTINGER Managing Director – International & Regulatory Affairs
JEFFREY A. MANLEY Senior Advisor – Regulatory Affairs UNITED AIR LINES, INC. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1210 Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone: (301) 229-8571 jeffrey.manley@united.com

DATED: April 27, 2010BEFORE THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

__________________________________________ ) Motion of ) ) DELTA AIR LINES, INC. ) Docket DOT-OST-2007-28567 NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. ) -2004-18469 ) for a dormancy waiver ) (U.S.-China Combination Frequencies) ) __________________________________________) DATED: April 27, 2010

ANSWER OF UNITED AIR LINES, INC.

United Air Lines, Inc. (“United”) hereby submits the following answer to Delta’s

motion dated April 21, 2010 in the above-refere nced dockets requesti ng an extension of

DOT’s dormancy waiver for the carrier’s tw o Seattle-Beijing frequencies and seven

Atlanta-Shanghai frequencies. United does not oppose the grant of Delta’s request so

long as the Department similarly grants Unite d’s request for an extension of its dormancy

waiver for San Francisco-Guangzhou frequenc ies, which is simultaneously being filed

today in Docket DOT-OST-2007-28567. United is hampered by the same circumstance

as Delta in trying to implement and utilize a ll of its U.S.-China frequencies: namely,

international travel demand is recovering, but not at the level needed to implement these

planned U.S.-China services. In conclusion, United urges the Department to grant anAnswer of United Page 2

extension of United’s dormancy waiver for the San Francisco-Guangzhou services in the

event that it grants Delta’s April 21, 2010 Motion.

Respectfully submitted,

JULIE OETTINGER Managing Director – International &

Regulatory Affairs UNITED AIR LINES, INC.

DATED: April 27, 2010CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing document on

all persons named below by causing a copy to be sent via e-mail.

byerlyjr@state.gov ben.slocum@usairways.com
carl.nelson@aa.com
dan.weiss@coair.com
hkamen@coair.com howard_kass@usairways.com jeff.morgan@delta.com
sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

Annalei Avanceña Advisor—Regulatory Affairs

DATED: April 27, 2010
IB 

Union Calendar No. 214

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1732

[Report No. 108–364] 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities 

Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the 

Williamson County, Texas, Water Recycling and Reuse Project, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 10, 2003

Mr. CARTER (for himself and Mr. EDWARDS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Resources 

NOVEMBER 17, 2003

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 

A BILL

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 

Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to participate in the Williamson County, 

Texas, Water Recycling and Reuse Project, 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,
2

•HR 1732 RH 

1 SECTION 1. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION. 

2 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the 

3 ‘‘Williamson County Water Recycling Act of 2003’’. 

4 (b) IN GENERAL.—The Reclamation Wastewater and 

5 Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (Title XVI of Pub6 lic Law 102–575; 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended by 

7 inserting after section 1635 the following new section: 

8 ‘‘SEC. 1636. WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, WATER RECY9 CLING AND REUSE PROJECT. 

10 ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary, in coopera11 tion with the Lower Colorado River Authority, Texas, is 

12 authorized to participate in the design, planning, and con13 struction of permanent facilities to reclaim and reuse 

14 water in Williamson County, Texas. 

15 ‘‘(b) COST SHARE.—The Federal share of the costs 

16 of the project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 

17 25 percent of the total cost. 

18 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—The Secretary shall not provide 

19 funds for the operation and maintenance of the project 

20 described in subsection (a).’’. 

21 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

22 in section 2 of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and 

23 Adjustment Act of 1992 is amended by inserting after the 

24 item relating to section 1635 the following:

‘‘1636. Williamson County, Texas, Water Recycling and Reuse Project.’’. 

Union Calendar No. 214

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1732

[Report No. 108–364] 

A BILL

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and 

Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Williamson County, Texas, Water Recycling and Reuse Project, and for other purposes. 

NOVEMBER 17, 2003

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of American Bio Medica Corporation (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2008 (the "Report"),
      I,
      Stan Cipkowski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.





/s/
                Stan CipkowskiStan
                CipkowskiChief
                Executive OfficerPrincipal
                Executive OfficerNovember
                14, 2008
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. 98-183 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Friday, October 9, 1998)

NRC APPROVES DECOMMISSIONING PLAN FOR B&W FACILITY

IN PARKS TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and

Safeguards has approved a plan submitted by Babcock and Wilcox Company (B&W)

for completing the decommissioning of its facility in Parks Township, Pa.

B&W has been decommissioning aboveground structures at the site in

accordance with an NRC-approved plan since 1995. The newly approved plan deals

with the removal of building slabs, basements, subsurface utilities and soil from the site.

It does not address activities on B&W’s adjacent Shallow Land Disposal Area, which is

administered under a separate license issued by NRC.

B&W has conducted licensed operations at the Parks Township site from the

late 1950's until the present. These operations included the processing of nuclear

material and the decontamination of equipment from other nuclear facilities.

The completion of decommissioning of the facility is expected to take

approximately three years, including one year of post-decommissioning groundwater

monitoring. If all decommissioning activities are completed in accordance with the

approved decommissioning plan, the NRC expects to release the site for unrestricted

use.

###
EXHIBIT 31.2I, Louis Ploth, Jr., certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Repros Therapeutics Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and          (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and          (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.       Dated: November 13, 2006 By: /s/ Louis Ploth, Jr. Louis Ploth, Jr.      Vice President Business Development and      Chief Financial Officer      Repros Therapeutics Inc.