alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### SUBCHAPTER XIII—TRANSITION; EFFECTIVE DATE; REPEALER

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Subchapter is based on part Z, formerly part M, of title I of Pub. L. 90–351, as added by Pub. L. 96–157, §2, and redesignated by Pub. L. 99–570, §1552(a)(1), Pub. L. 101–647, §§241(a)(1)(A), 801(a)(1), Pub. L. 102–521, §4(a)(1), Pub. L. 103–322, §§10003(a)(1), 20201(a)(1), 32101(a)(1), 40121(a)(1), 40231(a)(1), 50001(a)(1), 210201(a)(1), 210302(c)(1)(A), and Pub. L. 105–181, §3(a)(1).
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Little Sioux Corn Processors, L.L.C. (the “Company”) for the three monthfiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary Grotjohn, ChiefFinancial 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.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 
|   |   /s/ Gary Grotjohn   |   |
|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
|   | Gary Grotjohn                   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer         |
|   | Dated:   May 15, 2006 |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mirsad Grozdanic, Appellant.

[820 NYS2d 923]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s motion to be relieved of assignment granted *(see People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38 [1979]). (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Barry M. Donalty, J. — Sodomy, 3rd Degree). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Kehoe, Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of
ADA-ES, Inc. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

I, Michael D. Durham, certify that:
In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of ADA-ES, Inc.
(the "Company) for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Michael D. Durham, Chief Executive 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 requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Michael D. Durham
---------------------
Name: Michael D. Durham
Title: President
Date: August 11, 2005


I, Mark H. McKinnies, certify that:
In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of ADA-ES, Inc.
(the "Company) for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Mark H. McKinnies, 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 requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Mark H. McKinnies
---------------------
Name: Mark H. McKinnies
Title: CFO
Date: August 11, 2005
§ 5.2 Exemption of insubstantial financial conflicts. ( a ) An employee or special Government employee will not be subject to remedial or disciplinary action or to criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 208(a), if he makes a full disclosure in writing to the official responsible for his appointment of the nature and circumstances of the particular matter involved and of his conflicting financial interest relating thereto, and receives in advance a written determination made by such official that the interest is not so substantial as to be deemed likely to affect the integrity of the services which the Government may expect from the employee or special Government employee.
( b ) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the “official responsible for appointment” shall be the Executive Director in all cases where the employee is classified at grade GS-15 or below, or at a comparable pay level, except that each Commissioner shall be the “official responsible for appointment” of advisors in the Commissioner's immediate office.
( c ) In all other cases, the Chairman shall be the “official responsible for appointment.”
( d ) Pursuant to 5 CFR part 2640, certain financial interests are exempted from the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 208(a) as being too remote too inconsequential to affect the integrity of an employee's services.
[58 FR 15764, Mar. 24, 1993, as amended at 63 FR 35130, June 29, 1998]
### §12353. Establishment of National Center on Family Resource and Support Programs

#### (a) Establishment

The Commissioner shall establish, through grant or contract, a national center for the collection and provision of programmatic information and technical assistance that relates to all types of family resource and support programs, to be known as the "National Center on Family Resource and Support Programs".

#### (b) Functions

The national center established under subsection (a) shall serve as a national information and data clearinghouse, training, technical assistance, and material development source for family resource and support programs. Such center shall—

(1) develop and maintain a system for disseminating information on all types of family resource and support programs and on the state of family resource and support program development, including information concerning the most effective model programs;

(2) develop and sponsor a variety of training institutes and curricula for family resource and support program staff;

(3) identify several programs representing the various types of family resource and support programs to develop technical assistance materials and activities to assist other agencies in establishing family resource and support programs; and

(4) develop State-wide networks of family resource and support programs for the purpose of sharing and disseminating information.

(Pub. L. 101–501, title IX, §958, Nov. 3, 1990, 104 Stat. 1279; Pub. L. 103–252, title IV, §403(a), May 18, 1994, 108 Stat. 673.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 103–252 substituted "several programs" for "several model programs".

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1990, see section 1001(a) of Pub. L. 101–501, set out as an Effective Date of 1990 Amendment note under section 8621 of this title.
#### § 971.500 General.

Several provisions in the Act relate to appropriate mining techniques or mining efficiency. These raise what could be characterized as resource development issues. In particular, section 103(a)(2)(C) requires a resource assessment to be provided with the recovery plan. Section 103(a)(2)(D) of the Act provides that the applicant will select the size and location of the area of a recovery plan, which will be approved unless the Administrator finds that the area is not a “logical mining unit” or the commercial recovery activities in the proposed site would result in a significant adverse environmental effect which cannot be avoided by the imposition of reasonable restrictions. Also, pursuant to section 108 of the Act, the applicant's recovery plan and the TCRs of each permit must be designed to ensure diligent development. In addition, for the purpose of conservation of natural resources, section 110 of the Act provides that each permit is to contain, as needed, terms, conditions, and restrictions which have due regard for the prevention of waste and the future opportunity for the commercial recovery of the unrecovered balance of the resources.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 24, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-60781 Summary Calendar

MARIA LUZ MATA-ARZOLA, Petitioner,

versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A74-652-297

-------------------- Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Maria Luz Mata-Arzola (Mata) petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) denial of her request for cancellation of removal. She argues that the BIA erred when it determined that her continuous physical presence in the United States terminated in February 1993 when she departed the United States under threat of institution of removal proceedings.No. 02-60781 -2- This court has jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order denying cancellation of removal. See Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft , 349 F.3d 213, 217 (5th Cir. 2003). To be eligible for a discretionary cancellation of removal, an alien must satisfy four requirements, one of which is 10 years of continuous physical presence in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Mireles-Valdez , 349 F.3d at 214-15. The Attorney General has determined that voluntary departure under the threat of removal proceedings interrupts continuous presence. See Mireles-Valdez , 349 F.3d at 218. This court has upheld the Attorney General’s determination. See id

. PETITION DENIED.
Exhibit
10.1


FIRST AMENDMENT TO MANAGEMENT
SERVICES AGREEMENT


WITH
EVERCORE ADVISORS, INC.


This is the First Amendment to the Management Services Agreement with
Evercore Advisors, Inc. between Vertis Holdings, Inc., successor in interest to
Big Flower Holdings, Inc. (“Vertis Holdings”), a Delaware corporation, and
Evercore Advisors, Inc, a Delaware corporation, (“Consultant”) dated December
7, 1999 (“Agreement”).  The parties wish
to amend the Agreement, and agree as follows:


1.                                       Paragraph 4(a) of the Agreement shall be
amended such that Vertis Holdings shall not be required to make a cash payment
of the annual fee to Consultant beginning January 1, 2007; provided, however
that Vertis Holdings shall accrue the annual fee and pay out the accrued
balance after Vertis Holdings experiences a Change In Control as defined under
the Credit Agreement dated December 22, 2004 by and among Vertis, Inc., Vertis
Digital Services Limited, General Electric Capital Corporation, GECC Capital
Markets Group, Inc., Bank of America, N.A. and the other lenders and credit
parties named therein (the “Credit Agreement”) or Vertis, Inc. refinances the
Credit Agreement.


2.                                       All initial capitalized terms used within
this First Amendment shall have the definitions given to them in the Agreement
unless otherwise defined in this First Amendment.


3.                                       All other terms and conditions of the
Agreement shall remain the same and in full force and effect.  To the extent the provisions of the Agreement
conflict with the terms and provisions of this First Amendment, this First
Amendment shall control.


This
First Amendment is executed by the parties as of April 4, 2007.


	
  VERTIS HOLDINGS, INC.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /S/ John V. Howard, Jr.

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Printed Name:

  	
  John V. Howard, Jr.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Title:

  	
  Secretary

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  EVERCORE ADVISORS, INC.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /S/ Ciara Burnham

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Printed Name:

  	
  Ciara Burnham

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Title:

  	
  Senior Managing Director
#### Susan T. Adams v. Samuel C. Adams.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Present—Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Page and Davis, JJ.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 21.1

                        STATE/PROVINCE OF INCORPORATION
                              DATE OF INCORPORATION
                                  SUBSIDIARIES


HiEnergy Technologies, Inc. owns and operates the following subsidiaries:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
------------------------------------ ---------------------------- --------------------- ----------------------------

                                     PERCENTAGE OF OWNERSHIP BY    STATE/PROVINCE OF
        NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                   THE PARENT              INCORPORATION         DATE OF INCORPORATION
------------------------------------ ---------------------------- --------------------- ----------------------------
<S>                                       <C>                           <C>                   <C>
HiEnergy Microdevices, Inc.               approximately 92%             Delaware              August 21, 1995
------------------------------------ ---------------------------- --------------------- ----------------------------
VWO II, Inc.                                    100%                   Washington            December 29, 2000
------------------------------------ ---------------------------- --------------------- ----------------------------
HiEnergy Defense, Inc.                          100%                    Delaware               July 28, 2003
------------------------------------ ---------------------------- --------------------- ----------------------------
</TABLE>

<PAGE>
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Juan M. Pino, Respondent. Jars Electric Corporation, Appellant; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[820 NYS2d 819]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 17, 2005, which ruled that claimant was eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

After claimant stopped working for the employer, he applied for and received unemployment insurance benefits from June 2003 through December 2003. The employer objected to claimant’s receipt of benefits and extended administrative proceedings ensued, culminating in a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board overruling the employer’s objection that claimant was not totally unemployed during the time period in question and finding that he was eligible to receive benefits. It is from this decision that the employer now appeals.

On this appeal, the employer contends that claimant should have been disqualified from receiving benefits due to misconduct and challenges a prior Board decision that purportedly failed to *1105consider evidence on this issue. The employer, however, did not timely appeal the Board’s prior decision, and the decision before us does not address the issue of misconduct. Consequently, any arguments related thereto are not properly before this Court *(see Matter of Maldonado [Commissioner of Labor],*260 AD2d 885, 886 [1999]).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
### Part III—National Service Participants
19–008 

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 1st Session 108–237 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2859, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR DISASTER RELIEF ACT, 2003

JULY 25 (legislative day, JULY 24), 2003.—Referred to the House Calendar and 

ordered to be printed 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 339] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 339, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 2859, the 

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act, 

2003, under a modified closed rule. The rule waives all points of 

order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides one hour 

of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 

The rule provides for consideration of the amendment printed in 

the Congressional Record, if offered by Representative Toomey or 

his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally divided and controlled 

by the proponent and an opponent. The rule waives all points of 

order against that amendment. 

Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to clause 3(b) of House rule XIII the results of each 

record vote on an amendment or motion to report, together with 

the names of those voting for and against, are printed below: 

2

Rules Committee record vote No. 194

Date: July 24, 2003. 

Measure: H.R. 2859—Emergency Supplemental Appropriations 

for Disaster Relief Act, 2003. 

Motion by: Mr. Frost. 

Summary of motion: To make in order and provide the appropriate waivers for the amendment offered by Representative Obey 

which adds $100,000,000 for Americorps. Also requires Inspector 

General to perform random audits. 

Results: Defeated 4 to 9. 

Vote by Members: Goss—Nay; Linder—Nay; Pryce—Nay; DiazBalart—Nay; Hastings (WA)—Nay; Myrick—Nay; Sessions—Nay; 

Reynolds—Nay; Frost—Yea; Slaughter—Yea; McGovern—Yea; 

Hastings (FL)—Yea; Dreier—Nay. 

SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT MADE IN ORDER UNDER THE RULE

Toomey: Directs the President to make a pro-rata reduction in 

unobligated Fiscal Year 2003 discretionary funds to achieve savings of $983.6 million, thus fully offsetting the Supplemental. Defense programs, programs within the Department of Homeland Security, and programs within the Department of Veterans Affairs 

are specifically excluded from reduction. Finally, in the event that 

the President determines that the reduction in Fiscal Year 2003 for 

any particular program is excessive, he is authorized to make the 

reduction out of Fiscal Year 2004 funds for that account. (20 minutes)

Æ
#### Robert B. Miller v. Clinton S. Zimmerman.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present—Clarke, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Smith, JJ.
### SUBCHAPTER II—CARBON DIOXIDE
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Safe and sustainable waterresources: strategic research action plan**
 
2012-16 | 2016-19 | 2019-22 | 2023-26
 
SuDoc Number:EP 11.2:W 29/81/
Item Number:0431-Y (online)
CGP systemNumber:000984149
 
June 26, 2019
#### Irma Berg v. Solomon Berg.

Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Shientag, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 555.]
110 STAT. 3656 PUBLIC LAW 104–302—OCT. 11, 1996

Public Law 104–302

104th Congress

An Act

To extend the authorized period of stay within the United States for certain nurses.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZED PERIOD OF STAY FOR CERTAIN NURSES.

(a) ALIENS WHO PREVIOUSLY ENTERED THE UNITED STATES

PURSUANT TO AN H–1A VISA.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of

law, the authorized period of stay in the United States of

any nonimmigrant described in paragraph (2) is hereby

extended through September 30, 1997.

(2) NONIMMIGRANT DESCRIBED.—A nonimmigrant described

in this paragraph is a nonimmigrant—

(A) who entered the United States as a nonimmigrant

described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(a) of the Immigration

and Nationality Act;

(B) who was within the United States on or after

September 1, 1995, and who is within the United States

on the date of the enactment of this Act; and

(C) whose period of authorized stay has expired or

would expire before September 30, 1997 but for the provisions of this section.

(3) LIMITATIONS.—Nothing in this section may be construed

to extend the validity of any visa issued to a nonimmigrant

described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(a) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act or to authorize the re-entry of any person

outside the United States on the date of the enactment of

this Act.

(b) CHANGE OF EMPLOYMENT.—A nonimmigrant whose authorized period of stay is extended by operation of this section shall

not be eligible to change employers in accordance with section

214.2(h)(2)(i)(D) of title 8, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect

on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act).

(c) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 30 days after the date of

the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall issue regulations to carry out the provisions of this section.

(d) INTERIM TREATMENT.—A nonimmigrant whose authorized

period of stay is extended by operation of this section, and the

spouse and child of such nonimmigrant, shall be considered as

having continued to maintain lawful status as a nonimmigrant

through September 30, 1997.

8 USC 1182 note.

OCT. 11, 1996

[S. 2197]
PUBLIC LAW 104–302—OCT. 11, 1996 110 STAT. 3657

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2197:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 142 (1996):

Oct. 3, considered and passed Senate.

Oct. 4, considered and passed House.

Æ

SEC. 2. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

Effective on September 30, 1996, subtitle A of title III of the

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of

1996 is amended—

(1) in section 306(c)(1), by striking ‘‘to all final’’ and all

that follows through ‘‘Act and’’and inserting ‘‘as provided under

section 309, except that’’;

(2) in section 309(c)(1), by striking ‘‘as of’’ and inserting

‘‘before’’; and

(3) in section 309(c)(4), by striking ‘‘described in paragraph

(1)’’.

Approved October 11, 1996.

8 USC 1101 note.

8 USC 1252 note.

Effective date.