alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Steven J. Gonzalez, Respondent, v Charles D. Lavine, Appellant, et al., Respondent.

[820 NYS2d 616]

*484In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to invalidate a petition designating Charles D. Lavine as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 12, 2006, for the nomination of the Independence Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of Assembly, 13th Assembly District, Charles D. Lavine appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Shifrin, Ct Atty Ref), dated August 2, 2006, which, after a hearing, determined that there were only 102 valid signatures in the designating petition, and (2) a final order of the same court (Brandveen, J.), dated August 7, 2006, which, upon the order dated August 2, 2006, granted the petition and invalidated the designating petition.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated August 2, 2006, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the final order dated August 7, 2006, is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the order dated August 2, 2006, is vacated, the petition is denied, the proceeding is dismissed, and the Nassau County Board of Elections is directed to place the name of Charles D. Lavine on the appropriate ballot.

The appeal from the intermediate order dated August 2, 2006, must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the final order in the proceeding *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the final order *(see*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Election Law § 6-130 provides that “a designating petition must set forth in every instance the name of the signer, his or her residence address, town or city (except in the city of New York, the county), and the date when the signature is affixed.” There is no requirement, however, that a signer list the hamlet or particular geographic area within the town or city in which he or she resides *(see Matter of Grancio v Coveney,*60 NY2d 608, 610-611 [1983]; *Matter of Cheevers v Gates,*230 AD2d 948, 949 [1996]). Thus, under the circumstances here, the Supreme Court improperly determined that five signatures were invalid because the signers either omitted or incorrectly listed the hamlet within the town in which they reside. Since the signers *485provided all the information required by Election Law § 6-130, including their correct street addresses and the towns in which they reside, their signatures were valid. Counting these five signatures, the designating petition contained the requisite number of valid signatures.

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the appellant’s remaining contention. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein, Mastro and Lunn, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2  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 Annual Report of Merci, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010(the Report), I, Jose Acevedo, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations. Date: February 28, 2011 /s/ Jose Acevedo Chief Financial Officer
#### William V. Elliott, Public Administrator of Kings County, as Administrator of the Estate of Quirino Santogrossi, Appellant, v. Flushing Sand and Stone Co., Inc., Respondent, and Flushing Asphalt Corp., Impleaded Defendant-Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the impleaded defendant and the plaintiff appeal from an order granting reargument and on reargument denying the motion of the impleaded defendant to vacate an order granting the impleader. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The original defendant was the owner of the truck involved in the accident. That defendant rented the truck and furnished the chauffeur to the impleaded defendant. Whether the chauffeur was at the time of the accident the servant of the original defendant or of the impleaded defendant is a question of fact. The circumstance that the chauffeur was being paid by the original defendant does not prevent a finding that he was at the time of the accident the servant of the impleaded defendant. *(Wyllie*v. *Palmer,*137 N. Y. 248; *Higgins*V. *Western Union Telegraph Go.,*156 N. Y. 75; *Osborg*v. *Hoffman,*252 App. Div. 587, affd. 280 N. Y. 523.) The original defendant may be held liable whether the chauffeur was or was not "its servant at the time of the accident. *(Irwin*v. *Klein,*271 N. Y. 477.) If the original defendant is held liable solely as the owner of the truck, that is, under section 59 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, it is entitled to indemnity from the impleaded defendant if it be found that the chauffeur was the servant of the impleaded defendant at the time of the accident. Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur.
§ 946.10 Liaison officer. Prior to restructuring a field office, the Responsible Meteorologist shall designate at least one person in the affected service area to act as a liaison officer for at least a 2-year period whose duties shall be: ( a ) Provide timely information regarding the activities of the NWS which may affect service to the community including specifically modernization and restructuring activities; and
( b ) Work with area users, including persons associated with general aviation, civil defense, emergency preparedness, and the news media, with respect to the provision of timely weather warnings and forecasts.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# Summary of NRC Meeting with NEI/Industry at the Industry Initiated Fuel Cycle Oversight Conference in Atlanta GA on March 3, 5 and 6, 2014

Accession Number: ML14072A113

Date Released: Thursday, March 27, 2014

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML14072A141 - Memo Containing Summary of March 3, 5, and 6, 2014 Category 2 Meeting  between NRC and Stakeholders to Discuss Regulatory Issues at the Industry Initiated Fuel Cycle Oversight Conference. (3 page(s), 3/26/2014)
    - ML14072A142 - Enclosure 1:  Summary of the March 3, 5, and 6, 2014 Meeting Between  NRC and Stakeholders Regarding Fuel Cycle Issues. (4 page(s), 3/25/2014)
    - ML14072A143 - Enclosure 2:  Attendees Sheet for March 3, 5, and 6, 2014 Meeting Between NRC and Stakeholders Regarding Fuel Cycle Issues. (3 page(s), 3/25/2014)
    - ML14072A144 - Enclosure 3:  Handouts for March 3, 5, and 6, 2014 Meeting Between NRC and Stakeholders Regarding Fuel Cycle Issues. (101 page(s), 3/26/2014)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANDCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANTTO§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Review of Reef Global Energy I, L.P.(the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),we, Michael J. Mauceli, Chief Executive Officer, and Daniel C. Sibley, ChiefFinancial Officer of Reef Partners LLC, the managing general partner of ReefGlobal Energy I, L.P., certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

This certification is made solely for the purposes of U.S.C. §1350, andnot for any other purpose.

 
| /s/ Michael J. Mauceli                                   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Chief Executive Officer  Reef Partners LLC  May 15, 2003 |
|                                                     |
|                                                     |
| /s/ Daniel C. Sibley                                     |   |
| Chief Financial Officer  Reef Partners LLC  May 15, 2003 |
|                                                          |        |  |

 

----
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- Advanced System Management

Solutions JV, LLC ) ) ) ) ) Under ContractNo. N0042l- lO-C-0043 et al. ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 61457

Stephen J. McBrady, Esq. Skye Mathieson, Esq. Charles Baek, Esq.

Crowell & Moring LLP Washington, DC Arthur M. Taylor, Esq.

DCMA ChiefTrial Attorney Samuel W. Morris, Esq.

Trial Attorney Defense Contract Management Agency Chantilly, VA ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: July 1, 2019

Administrative Judge Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61457, Appeal ofAdvanced System Management Solutions JV, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated: PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AUTHORIZES STAFF TO RENEW 

OPERATING LICENSE FOR PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has authorized the Director of the Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation to renew the operating license of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in 

Plymouth, Mass., for an additional 20 years. Staff expects to renew the license before Pilgrim’s 

current operating license expires on June 8.

The Commission’s authorization came in a Staff Requirements Memorandum issued 

today. The staff had requested authorization to renew Pilgrim’s license although some 

contentions remain under adjudication before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Under 

NRC policy, a decision to renew a license before completion of the hearing requires Commission 

approval. The authorization specifies that if the renewed license is subsequently set aside on 

appeal, the previous license would be reinstated.

Without the license renewal, Entergy, the plant operator, could continue to operate the 

Pilgrim reactor after June 8 under “timely renewal” provisions in NRC regulations, which would 

keep the current license in effect while the adjudication continues. Renewal of the license means 

new license conditions take effect, requiring Entergy to implement age-management policies and 

programs designed to ensure safety during the period of extended operations.

The Staff Requirements Memorandum and the Commissioners’ votes are available on the 

NRC website.

###

NOTE: Anyone wishing to take photos or use a camera to record any portion of a NRC meeting should 

contact the Office of Public Affairs beforehand.

News releases are available through a free Listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES 

link on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are 

posted to NRC's website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

E-mail: opa.resource@nrc.gov Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No. 12-062 May 25, 2012
Exhibit 32


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


<PAGE>

Exhibit 32


                          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 Xpention  Genetics,  Inc.  (formerly
Bayview  Corporation  (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended August
31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  the  undersigned,  in the capacities and on the dates indicated
below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 Company.


Date:  October 21, 2005


/s/ David Kittrell
---------------------------------------
David Kittrell, CEO and CFO
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350
by Chief Financial Officer

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of VSB Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Raffaele M.
Branca, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

|                       |                        
|---------------------- | -----------------------
|Date: August
 11, 2009 |                        
|                       |                        
|                       | /s/ Raffaele
 M. Branca
|                       |                        
|                       | Raffaele M.
 Branca    
|                       | President,
 CEO and CFO

A signed original of this
written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.

36

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1328

DANA EXUM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NORMAN E. D’AMOURS, Chairman, National Credit

Union Administration,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CA-97-1007-A)

Submitted: October 30, 1998 Decided: December 14, 1998

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dana Exum, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Bonner McClendon, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Dana Exum appeals the district court’s order granting summary

judgment to Defendant in this employment discrimination action. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no

reversible error. With regard to Exum’s claim that she was subjected to disparate treatment because of her race, we find Exum

failed to produce evidence that Defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the adverse employment actions were

pretextual. See Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450

U.S. 248, 252-53 (1981). Moreover, we find the district court’s

denial of relief on Exum’s retaliation claim proper because she

failed to show a causal connection between her protected activity

and the adverse employment actions. See Ross v. Communications

Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d 35, 365 (4th Cir. 1985). Finally, we find

meritless Exum’s contentions that the district court did not properly determine the scope of adverse employment action and improperly found her documentation to be hearsay.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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
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 on Form 10-Q of Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Brenda G. Gujral, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Steven P. Grimes, as Principal Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his or her 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 Company.



|      |                            
|----- | ---------------------------
|      | /s/ Brenda G. Gujral       
|      |                            
|      |                            
|Name: | Brenda G. Gujral           
|      | Chief Executive Officer    
|      |                            
|Date: | May 9, 2006                
|      |                            
|      |                            
|      |                            
|      | /s/ Steven P. Grimes       
|      |                            
|Name: | Steven P. Grimes           
|      | Principal Financial Officer
|      |                            
|Date: | May 9, 2006                
|      |                            
|      |                            
|      |                            
|      |                            
|      |                            
|      |                            
|      |                            
|      |                            
|      |                            
|      |
### SUBCHAPTER IV—UNIVERSITY AFFILIATED PROGRAMS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1751

AMEDE MOLIMI BULA BULA, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-466-106) Submitted: July 21, 2004 Decided: August 6, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ana T. Jacobs, ANA T. JACOBS & ASSOCIATES, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Anthony P. Nicastro, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Amede Molimi Bula Bula, a native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its di scretion. SeeINS v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). Additionally, we conclude Bula Bula’s claims that the Board’s new streamlining regulations, pursuant to which his appeal was decided by a single Board member, were impermissibly retroactive, inconsistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act, and in violation of his rights under the Due Process Clause are foreclosed by Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft , 362 F.3d 272 (4th Cir. 2004), in which we concluded to the contrary. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
[Civil No. 296.]

#### JOHN Y. T. SMITH, Appellee, v. C. BURTON FOSTER, Appellant.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Second Judicial District in and for the County of Maricopa.

No appearance of record.

January 16, 1890.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, Tal L. Kapelner, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 that:

(i)       
          The accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended
          September 30, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii)       
          The information in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
          financial condition and results of operations of Tally-Ho Ventures, Inc. (the
          Company).

| |                                              
| | ---------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Tal L. Kapelner
Tal L. Kapelner
President

Date: November 10, 2004

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 the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.