alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 433.1 Definitions. ( a ) *Person.* An individual, corporation, or any other business organization.
( b ) *Consumer.* A natural person who seeks or acquires goods or services for personal, family, or household use.
( c ) *Creditor.* A person who, in the ordinary course of business, lends purchase money or finances the sale of goods or services to consumers on a deferred payment basis; *Provided,* such person is not acting, for the purposes of a particular transaction, in the capacity of a credit card issuer.
( d ) *Purchase money loan.* A cash advance which is received by a consumer in return for a “Finance Charge” within the meaning of the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z, which is applied, in whole or substantial part, to a purchase of goods or services from a seller who ( 1 ) refers consumers to the creditor or
( 2 ) is affiliated with the creditor by common control, contract, or business arrangement.
( e ) *Financing a sale.* Extending credit to a consumer in connection with a “Credit Sale” within the meaning of the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z.
( f ) *Contract.* Any oral or written agreement, formal or informal, between a creditor and a seller, which contemplates or provides for cooperative or concerted activity in connection with the sale of goods or services to consumers or the financing thereof.
( g ) *Business arrangement.* Any understanding, procedure, course of dealing, or arrangement, formal or informal, between a creditor and a seller, in connection with the sale of goods or services to consumers or the financing thereof.
( h ) *Credit card issuer.* A person who extends to cardholders the right to use a credit card in connection with purchases of goods or services.
( i ) *Consumer credit contract.* Any instrument which evidences or embodies a debt arising from a “Purchase Money Loan” transaction or a “financed sale” as defined in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.
( j ) *Seller.* A person who, in the ordinary course of business, sells or leases goods or services to consumers.
[40 FR 53506, Nov. 18, 1975]
#### Incorporated Village of Great Neck, Appellant, v. 435 Middle Neck Corp. et al., Respondents.

No opinion. Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ.
On Friday, January 22, 2013 at 1:30 PM EST, Secretary Ray LaHood had a 

conversation via telephone with the Governor of Puerto Rico, Alejandro GarcíaPadilla, regarding the privatization of the Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport 

(SJU). 

Governor García-Padilla informed the Secretary that he was not requesting a 

decision on the application by a specific date, but wanted to express the following 

concerns with respect to SJU’s application to participate in the FAA’s Airport 

Privatization Pilot Program:

• The firing of any employees of SJU as a result of privatization; and 

• Any increase in airport rates or fees at SJU.

Secretary LaHood noted that the FAA is currently reviewing the SJU application 

and was aware of the concerns expressed by the Governor, which were previously 

expressed on December 28, 2012. The Secretary stated that the FAA would 

render a decision on the application shortly.
#### Hilton Watch Co., Inc., Respondent, v. Benrus Watch Co. et al., Appellant.

No opinion. The date for the examination to proceed shall be fixed in the order. Settle order on notice. Present- — -Peck, P. J., Glennon, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

KMART HOLDING CORPORATION

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION(1)

         In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kmart Holding
Corporation for the period ended October 29, 2003, each of the undersigned
officers of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his
knowledge:

         1. this Form 10-Q for the period ended October 29, 2003 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 this Form 10-Q for the period ended
October 29, 2003 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Kmart Holding Corporation.


         Date:    December 5, 2003


                                                 /s/ Julian C. Day
                                                 -----------------------------
                                                 Julian C. Day
                                                 Chief Executive Officer


         Date:  December 5, 2003


                                                 /s/ Richard J. Noechel
                                                 -----------------------------
                                                 Richard J. Noechel
                                                 Vice President and Controller


         Date:  December 5, 2003


                                                 /s/ James F. Gooch
                                                 -----------------------------
                                                 James F. Gooch
                                                 Vice President and Treasurer



Footnote 1:

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures
that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Kmart Holding
Corporation and will be retained by Kmart Holding Corporation and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1744

RAMAN K. SINGH,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GARY HASS, a/k/a Gary Van Hass, a/k/a Gary Hollywood,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:09-cv-00386-HEH)

Submitted: March 28, 2011 Decided: May 5, 2011

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James E. Bowman, II, FERRISBOWMAN PLLC, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Stacie C. Bordick, HIRSCHLER FLEISCHER, P.C., 

Fredericksburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gary Hass appeals the district court’s order accepting 

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his 

motion to dismiss the Appellee’s complaint. The district court 

referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The magistrate judge 

recommended that relief be denied and the district court 

subsequently adopted that recommendation. However, the timely 

filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s 

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the 

substance of that recommendation. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 

841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 

109 F.3d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1997) (forfeiture rule enforced 

where report fails to inform party of consequences of failure to 

object if party is represented by counsel). Hass has waived 

appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate 

judge’s report. 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
§ 143.7 Delegation of authority to the Executive Director. ( a ) The Commission hereby delegates, until such time as the Commission orders otherwise, to the Executive Director or to any Commission employee under the Executive Director's supervision as he or she may designate, authority to take action to carry out subpart A and subpart B of this part and the requirements of 31 CFR parts 900-905 and 31 CFR 285.11.
( b ) Delegated waivers or compromise under this part shall be with the concurrence of the General Counsel and the Director of the Division of Enforcement or of their respective designees.
[50 FR 5384, Feb. 8, 1985, as amended at 69 FR 52997, Aug. 31, 2004]
#### Abraham Ravich, Respondent, v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 (the Form 10-QSB) of Surrey Bancorp (the Company), we, Edward C. Ashby, III, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, and Mark H.Towe, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:



(a) the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(b) the
information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form 10-QSB.



|    |  |                           |  |                   
|--- |  | ------------------------- |  | ------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Edward C. Ashby, III. |  | Date: May 13, 2004
|    |  | Edward C. Ashby, III.     |  |                   
|    |  | President and             |  |                   
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer   |  |                   
|    |  |                          
|By: |  | /s/ Mark H. Towe          |  | Date: May 13, 2004
|    |  | Mark H. Towe              |  |                   
|    |  | Sr. Vice-President and    |  |                   
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer   |  |
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 Edgewater Foods International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 29, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael Boswell, Acting 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; and  (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.   Date:  April 14, 2008  /s/  Michael Boswell Michael Boswell, Acting Chief Accounting Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7451
MARION LEON BEA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BETH ARTHUR, Sheriff, Arlington County Detention Facility, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-04-802) Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 23, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marion Leon Bea, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Marion Leon Bea appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Bea v. Arthur , No. CA-04-802 (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 23, 2004 & entered Aug. 26, 2004). 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
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 68885]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26182]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Active Duty Service Determinations for Civilians or Contractual 
Groups

    On November 4, 2004, the Secretary of the Air Force, acting as 
Executive Agent of the Secretary of Defense, determined that the 
service of the group known as ``U.S. Civil Servants on Temporary Duty 
at Long Binh, Republic of Vietnam From about April 4, 1972, to about 
April 27, 1972, to Design a Commercial Carrier Commodity Tariff and 
Shipment Control System'' shall not be considered ``active duty'' for 
purposes of all laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs 
(VA).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James D. Johnston at the Secretary 
of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC), 1535 Command Drive, EE 
Wing, 3d Fl., Andrews AFB, MD 20762-7002.

Albert Bodnar,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-26182 Filed 11-24-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
No: II-13-32 May 10, 2013

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417

Joey Ledford 404-997-4416

NRC Schedules Public Meeting and Open House to Discuss 

Annual Assessment of Harris Nuclear Power Plant 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a public meeting and open house on 

May 20 to discuss the agency’s assessment of safety performance during 2012 at the Harris nuclear 

power plant. The plant, operated by Duke Energy, is near New Hill, N.C., about 20 miles southwest of 

Raleigh. 

An open house and poster session is scheduled from 5-6:30 p.m. at the Holly Springs Cultural 

Center, 300 West Ballentine Street in Holly Springs. At 6:30, the NRC staff will make a brief 

presentation and will be available to answer questions on the safety performance of the Harris plant last 

year, as well as the NRC role in ensuring safe plant operation. 

“The NRC inspects nuclear plants and monitors their performance on an ongoing basis,” said 

NRC Region II Administrator Victor McCree. “We issue inspection reports throughout the year and we 

hold these annual meetings near each plant to discuss our oversight and answer any questions local 

residents may have.”

The NRC review concluded that the Harris plant operated in a manner that preserved public 

health and safety and protected the environment. The Harris plant was subject to increased NRC 

oversight as a result of one inspection finding of low to moderate safety significance last year. That 

finding was for failure to maintain adequate emergency facilities and equipment to support emergency 

response. An NRC follow-up inspection earlier this year found that the company had taken appropriate 

corrective actions for that issue, and the plant has now been returned to the normal level of NRC 

oversight and inspection. 

A letter sent from the NRC Region II office to plant officials addresses the performance of the 

plant during 2012 and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is publicly available on the 

NRC website.

This year, the NRC plans to continue to conduct the normal, very detailed inspections required 

at plants, including Harris, that are operating well. In addition, the agency will complete an inspection

related to buried piping at Harris. 

Current performance information for the Harris plant is available on the NRC website.
#### The City of Hudson and Board of Education of the City of Hudson, Respondents, v. Burchartz Fireproofing Company, Inc., Appellant.

Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs, with usual leave to defendant to withdraw demurrer, and answer on payment of costs in this court and in the court below. All concurred, except Howard, J., who dissented.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ANGEL RIOS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-3459

[February 28, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Martin S. Fein, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 07-6183 CF10A.

Angel Rios, Zephyrhills, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Irving Thal, Appellant, v. Abraham Brandwine et al., Respondents.

The position of respondents’ attorney is not included in the enumeration of those whose occupants are prohibited from practicing in any court. By regulation of the Judges of the County Court he is prohibited from practice in that court only. Carswell, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Parkroad Realty Corp., Appellant, against Charles G. Coster et al., Constituting the Temporary City Housing Rent Commission of the City of New York, Respondents.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Michael V. Shustek, as Chief Executive Officer of Vestin Mortgage, Inc., thesole Manager of Vestin Fund III, LLC, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Vestin Fund III, LLC; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of Vestin Fund III, LLC as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 4. Vestin Fund III, LLC’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for Vestin FundIII, LLC and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to VestinFund III LLC, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and34-47986;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of Vestin Fund III, LLC’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any changes in Vestin Fund III,LLC’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringVestin Fund III, LLC’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affectVestin Fund III LLC’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. Vestin Fund III, LLC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to Vestin Fund III, LLC’s auditors and the audit committee ofVestin Fund III, LLC’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect Vestin Fund III,LLC’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in Vestin Fund III,LLC’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 15, 2004
/s/ Michael V. ShustekMichael V. Shustek
#### Frey Realty Co., Inc., Appellant, v. Ten West 46th St. Corp. et al., Respondents.

While in the situation presented in this case the granting of injunctive relief was not appropriate and Special Term properly refused to enforce the restrictive covenant by way of injunction, nevertheless we think there should have been a determination as to the amount of damage sustained by plaintiff as the result of defendants’ refusal to observe the restrictive covenant which was unquestionably binding on them. Obviously plaintiff’s building was adversely affected by defendants’ acts. Denial of injunctive relief did not necessarily preclude plaintiff of its right to establish damages *(Wattack Constr. Go.*v. *Smalwich Realty Corp.,*201 App. Div. 133, 135). Accordingly, the judgment is unanimously modified by eliminating therefrom the provision that it is with prejudice to the institution by plaintiff of an action at law for damages ■and, as so modified affirmed, and the matter is remitted to Special Term for a trial on the issue of damage, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Botein and Rabin, JJ.
(June 23,1949.)

#### General Phoenix Corporation, Appellant, v. John B. Cabot, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Shientag, JJ.; Peck, P. J., and Shientag, J., dissent and vote to reverse and grant the motion. [See *post,*p. 998.]
̄

012

Miles

Land Structure Type

NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Between Lakes The SOUTH

This product was produced from geospatial information prepared by

the USDA Forest Service. Source map scales vary and accuracy of

this product has not been assessed. Using GIS product for purposes

other than those for which they were created my yield inaccurate or

misleading results.

Disclaimer

Legend

Structure Type

Mature Closed Forest

Mature Forest with Gaps

Mid-Aged Forest

Young Forest

Open Lands

Administrative

Utility Corridor

Other Features

Water

Roads

1

2

3

4

5

Prepared by US Forest Service, Land Between The Lakes

GIS Laboratory, September 2004

Road Buffer

Mature Open Forest

Regenerating Forest
No: II-14-055 November 20, 2014

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417

 Joey Ledford 404-997-4416

NRC Increases Oversight and Inspection of St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is increasing its oversight of St. Lucie Unit 1 due to 

violations linked to plant operators’ failure to ensure that the reactor’s auxiliary building was 

watertight. 

The St. Lucie plant is operated by FPL and is located in Jenson Beach, Fla., east of Port St. 

Lucie.

The finding, originally documented in a Sept. 24 NRC inspection report, was found to be 

“white,” or of low to moderate safety significance. The NRC evaluates inspection findings and 

performance indicators at commercial power plants with a color-coded system which classifies them as 

green, white, yellow or red, in increasing order of safety significance. With the white finding, St. Lucie 

Unit 1 will receive an increased level of inspection and oversight.

FPL did not contest the safety significance of the finding, and has agreed to corrective actions 

that include repair of flood seals, flood response procedure revisions, additional site visual inspections 

of flood protection features and program improvements to ensure external flood barrier integrity.

In addition to the white finding, NRC also assessed a Severity Level III violation against FPL 

for failure to provide the NRC with complete and accurate information on the condition of the flood 

barriers at St. Lucie. Civil penalties for that violation were waived because St. Lucie has not been the 

subject of escalated enforcement actions for the last two years and has undertaken the necessary 

corrective actions.

“The St. Lucie plant continues to operate in a way that protects public health and safety,” said 

Victor McCree, the NRC’s Region II administrator. “However, the NRC wants to make sure that all 

nuclear plant operators recognize the importance of protecting safety equipment from possible flood 

damage.”