alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §§2251 to 2257. Repealed. Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title I, §302(a), as added Pub. L. 95–110, §1, Sept. 20, 1977, 91 Stat. 884; renumbered title I, Oct. 24, 1992, Pub. L. 102–486, title IX, §902(a)(8), 106 Stat. 2944

Section 2251, act Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, §201, as added Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 956, provided for establishment of Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.

Provisions similar to section 2251 were contained in section 1815(a) of this title prior to the general amendment and renumbering of act Aug. 1, 1946 by act Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 919.

Section 2252, act Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, §202, as added Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 956; amended Sept. 6, 1961, Pub. L. 87–206, §17, 75 Stat. 479; Mar. 26, 1964, Pub. L. 88–294, 78 Stat. 172; Dec. 6, 1974, Pub. L. 93–514, 88 Stat. 1611, set out authority and duties of Joint Committee.

Provisions similar to section 2252 were contained in section 1815(b) of this title prior to the general amendment and renumbering of act Aug. 1, 1946 by act Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 919.

Section 2253, act Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, §203, as added Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 956, provided for a Chairman and a Vice Chairman of Committee.

Provisions similar to section 2253 were contained in section 1815(c) of this title prior to the general amendment and renumbering of act Aug. 1, 1946 by act Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 919.

Section 2254, act Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, §204, as added Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 957; amended Dec. 27, 1974, Pub. L. 93–554, title I, §101(2), 88 Stat. 1776, related to the powers of Committee.

Provisions similar to section 2254 were contained in section 1815(d) of this title prior to the general amendment and renumbering of act Aug. 1, 1946 by act Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 919.

Section 2255, act Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, §205, as added Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 957, related to staff and assistance for Committee.

Provisions similar to section 2255 were contained in section 1815(e) of this title prior to the general amendment and renumbering of act Aug. 1, 1946 by act Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 919.

Section 2256, act Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, §206, as added Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 957, related to classification of information originating in Committee.

Section 2257, act Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, §207, as added Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 957, required that Committee keep records of all Committee actions.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Act Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title I, §302(a), as added Pub. L. 95–110, §1, Sept. 20, 1977, 91 Stat. 884; renumbered title I, Oct. 24, 1992, Pub. L. 102–486, title IX, §902(a)(8), 106 Stat. 2944, provided that the repeal of sections 2251 to 2257 is effective Sept. 20, 1977.
#### Levitan Lumber Company, Defendant in Error, v. Max Yegendorf et al., Plaintiffs in Error.

Gen. No. 19,723.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Appeal and ebroe, § *372*
      ***
      *—when invalidity of contract under*Statute' *of Frauds not considered.*Where the question as to the invalidity of an oral contract under the Statute of Frauds was not raised below, it will not be considered for the first time in the Appellate Court.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Thomas F. Scully, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed February 24, 1915.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Levitan Lumber Company against Max Tegendorf and another to recover the sum of $65.15, averred by the statement, of claim to have been “the current market price of lumber delivered to a building of the defendant, Max Tegendorf,” for which it was alleged both he and one Balonik, his contractor, promised to pay. Tegendorf’s affidavit of defense alleged that the goods were not ordered by nor delivered to him, but were sold to Balonik, and that he never so promised. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant, Tegendorf, brings error.

William J. Dillon, for plaintiffs in error.

Heldman, Jackson & Graff, for defendant in error; Lewis F. Jacobson, of counsel.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

*4552. Sales, § *332*
      ***
      *—when judgment for value of goods sold must he reversed.*Where in an action to recover for the reasonable value of lumber alleged to have been sold and delivered to defendant there was no evidence whatever of quantity, quality or value of same, a judgment in favor of plaintiff must be reversed, there being no contention that a price was agreed upon between the parties.

3. Sales, § *327*—what evidence insufficient to prove quantity and value of goods sold.*In an action for the reasonable value of goods alleged to have been sold to defendant, proof merely of the amount of the bill entered on plaintiff’s books is insufficient to prove the quantity, quality or value of the goods sold.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1545-DR]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-1545-DR), dated September 4, 2004, and related determinations.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

December 3, 2004.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 4, 2004:

Lafayette and Taylor Counties for Public Assistance [Categories C-G] (already designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B] under the Public Assistance program and direct Federal assistance at 100 percent Federal funding of the total eligible costs for the first 72 hours.)

                        (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 Individuals and Households Program-Other Needs, 97.036, Public Assistance                               ( print page 71828)                            Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)                    

Michael D. Brown,

Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security.

[FR Doc. 04-27135 Filed 12-9-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

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 Inergy Holdings, L.P. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, R. Brooks Sherman, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Inergy Holdings, L.P., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ R. Brooks Sherman, Jr.R. Brooks Sherman, Jr. Chief Financial OfficerMay 10, 2006


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.



47
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T18:33:19-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2476

JUDY CURRY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

WALTER W. WEIFORD, personally and in his

official capacity as Prosecuting Attorney of

Pocahontas County, West Virginia; ROBERT A.

ALKIRE, personally and in his official

capacity as Sheriff of Pocahontas County, West

Virginia; DAVID A. WALTON, personally and in

his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff of

Pocahontas County, West Virginia; COUNTY

COMMISSION OF POCAHONTAS COUNTY, WEST

VIRGINIA, et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 04-2479

JUDY CURRY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

WALTER WEIFORD, personally and in his official

capacity as Prosecuting Attorney of Pocahontas

County, West Virginia; ROBERT A. ALKIRE,

personally and in his official capacity as
- 2 -

Sheriff of Pocahontas County, West Virginia;

DAVID A. WALTON, personally and in his

official capacity as Deputy Sheriff of

Pocahontas County, West Virginia; COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS OF POCAHONTAS COUNTY, WEST

VIRGINIA,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior

District Judge. (CA-03-115-2)

Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 24, 2005

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Judy Curry, Appellant Pro Se. Duane Joseph Ruggier, II, PULLIN,

FOWLER & FLANAGAN, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Judy Curry seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

denying her motion for permissive joinder, under Fed. R. Civ. P.

20(a), and for modification of a discovery order filed in her

underlying 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. This court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and

certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292

(2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan

Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The orders Curry seeks to appeal are

neither final orders nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral

orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction and deny Curry’s pending motion to remand. We deny

Curry’s motion for 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.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 31.2
      **I, Leonard M. Anthony, certify that:**
      1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of InternationalSteel Group Inc.;
      2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of 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. [Intentionally left blank.];
      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; and
      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 registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls 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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: March 10, 2005 /s/ Leonard M. Anthony   Leonard M. Anthony   Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Arthur Finston, Appellant. Shirley K. Bernstein, Respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

While, in general, it is sound policy to require a hearing before the court itself or before an official referee in all matters affecting custody or rights of visitation, the papers before us indicate that there is no basis for any change in the provisions relating to visitation, and that the court at Special Term was right in so holding.

The agreement of the parties, incorporated in the foreign judgment of divorce, is not conclusive in the forum in which the child resides, but the provisions of the foreign judgment concerning custody and visitation are entitled to great weight and should not be changed unless a clear and convincing reason therefor is shown. Here, on the contrary, the papers show that a change in the right of visitation would operate not for the welfare of the child, now about six years of age, but to her detriment. It also appears that the father, who consented to the rather harsh restrictions on his right of visitation which were incorporated in the Nevada decree did so voluntarily, and that, under the circumstances here presented, which we do not deem it necessary to detail, his action in seeking a revision is not in good faith but is dictated by considerations entirely alien to those affecting the child’s welfare. No application was made below, nor was there any request in the affidavits for a hearing such as is now sought. Accordingly, we hold that the departure from the general rule concerning the necessity for a hearing in custody cases is not prejudicial to the appellant. The order below is affirmed, with costs.

Peck, P. J., Dore, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent-respondent.
#### Sylvanus D. Locke, Individually and as Administrator, etc., and Another, Appellants, v. Martin McVoy, Jr., and Others, Respondents.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present—Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Scott, Dowling and Page, JJ.
No. 933.

#### Gulf, M. & N. R. Co. et al. *v.*Kelly.

June 1, 1937.

*Messrs. Ellis B. Cooper*and *J. N. Flowers*for petitioners. *Mr. Marion W. Reily*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Mississippi denied.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 237 (Friday, December 10, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 71849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27071]



[[Page 71849]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--The American Society for Nondestructive Testing

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 21, 2004, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), The American Society for 
Nondestructive Testing (``ASNT'') had filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of 
the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of 
its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for 
the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: The American 
Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH. The nature and scope 
of ASNT's standards development activities are: to develop personnel 
qualifications and certification requirements for nondestructive 
testing.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-27071 Filed 12-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
###### Editorial Note on Part 240

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 240.3a11-1 Definition of the term “equity security.”

The term *equity security* is hereby defined to include any stock or similar security, certificate of interest or participation in any profit sharing agreement, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, voting trust certificate or certificate of deposit for an equity security, limited partnership interest, interest in a joint venture, or certificate of interest in a business trust; any security future on any such security; or any security convertible, with or without consideration into such a security, or carrying any warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase such a security; or any such warrant or right; or any put, call, straddle, or other option or privilege of buying such a security from or selling such a security to another without being bound to do so.

[67 FR 19673, Apr. 23, 2002]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shawn Kuar, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 141]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.), imposed August 12, 2004, on the ground that the sentence is excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed. No opinion. Prudenti, P.J, Adams, Krausman, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

Section 1350 certification of Chief Executive Officer

In
connection with the quarterly report of Puradyn Filter Technologies
Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March, 31, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Joseph
V. Vittoria, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 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 result of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 24, 2010

| |                                       | 
| | ------------------------------------- | 
| | /s/ Joseph V Vittoria                
| |                                       | 
| | Name: Joseph V. Vittoria             
| | Chairman and Chief
 Executive Officer
| | principal executive
 officer         

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement 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.

---
| Search  Home  Site Map                     DoD Sites   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  NewsImagesPublicationsTodayQuestions?                                                         |

| DoD NewsOfficial DoD Releases            Subscribe!- More  news ,                photos ,  advisories ,                contracts ,               and  transcripts |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|