alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**








In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Internet Infinity, Inc.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the
“Report”), I, Roger Casas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
      certify that to my knowledge:





(1) The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o(d)); and





(2) The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
                August 14, 2007*/s/
                Roger Casas*Roger
                CasasChief
                Executive Officer





The
      above
      certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
      or as a separate disclosure document.
#### § 1508.1000 Respondent.

*Respondent* means a person against whom an agency has initiated a debarment or suspension action.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roberto Rodriguez, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Ulster County *677Court, rendered June 7, 1976, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, a class A-III felony. The record reveals that prior to trial the court conveyed to the defendant an offer of the District Attorney to recommend the minimum sentence for this felony of one year to life if he pleaded guilty. The court indicated that if the defendant offered to so plead guilty, the court would thereafter permit a withdrawal of the plea if it should find that a more severe sentence should be imposed. The defendant rejected the offer but now contends that the sentence of a minimum of four years to life is too severe. The record does not establish that the court imposed the sentence because the defendant went to trial, but instead that it was based upon the entire case as presided over by the Trial Judge and upon a presentence report. This appeal from the sentence raises no legal issues of merit and does not establish any basis for interference by this court. Judgment affirmed. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Kane, Main and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Norvell Brandon, Also Known as Ernest Brandon, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on March 24, 1975, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel granted (see *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833). No opinion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Silverman, Markewich and Sandler, JJ.
EX-32.2 Certification
Pursuant to Section 906

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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER

In connection with the Quarterly Report
of TS&B Holdings, Inc., (the Company), on Form 10-QSB for the
quarter ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the Report), I, Charles Gianetto, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that
to my 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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Charles GianettoCharles Gianetto, Chief
Financial Officer February 13, 2004
§ 1507.8 Fees. Fees to be charged, if any, to any individual for making copies of his or her record will be as follows: ( a ) Photocopy reproductions from all types of copying processes, each reproduction image, $0.10 per page.
( b ) Where the Foundation undertakes to perform for an individual making a request, or for any other person, services which are very clearly not required to be performed under section 552a, title 5, United States Code, either voluntarily or because such services are required by some other law (e.g., the formal certification of records as true copies, attestation under the seal of the Foundation, etc.), the question of charging fees for such services will be determined by the Director of Administration and Finance, in light of the Federal user charge statute (31 U.S.C. 483a), and any other applicable law.
( c ) No fees shall be charged for search time expended by the Foundation to produce a record.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 31, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00112

- CV

GARY BEAVERS CONSTRUCTION , Gary W. Beavers, and Amy Beavers

, Appellant

v.

Robert W. SKLOSS an d Jaclyn H. Nguyen,

Appellee

From the 452nd District Court, Edwards County, Texas

Trial Court No. 4048

The Honorable Robert Hoffman, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellee’s second motion for extension of time is GRANTED. Appellee’s brief is due

September 1, 2017. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED.

_________________________________ Karen An gelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 31st day of July, 2017

.

___________________________________ Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk
#### § 234.3 The Guarantee.

Subject to the terms and conditions set out in this part, the United States of America, acting through USAID, guarantees to Noteholders the Borrower's repayment of 100 percent of principal and interest due on Eligible Notes. Under this Guarantee, USAID agrees to pay to any Noteholder compensation in Dollars equal to such Noteholder's Loss of Investment under its Eligible Note; provided, however, that no such payment shall be made to any Noteholder for any such loss arising out of fraud or misrepresentation for which such Noteholder is responsible or of which it had knowledge at the time it became such Noteholder. This Guarantee shall apply to each Eligible Note registered on the Note Register.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 242 (Friday, December 17, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75566-75567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27606]


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

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

National Park Service


Notice of Intent To Prepare a General Management Plan and 
Environmental Impact Statement

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA)of 1969, the National Park Service (NPS) announces its 
intent to prepare a General Management Plan and

[[Page 75567]]

Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/EIS) for the George Washington 
Birthplace National Monument, Westmoreland County, Virginia. The park 
contains 550 acres that comprise significant portions of the 17th and 
18th century Washington family plantation holdings, including the site 
of the home where George Washington was born and spent his early years. 
Prepared byplanners in the NPS Northeast Region, with assistance from 
advisors and consultants, the GMP/EIS will propose a long-term approach 
to managing the George Washington BirthplaceNational Monument.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Superintendent, George Washington 
Birthplace National Monument, (804) 224-1732

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Consistent with the site's mission, NPS 
policy, andother laws and regulations, alternatives will be developed 
to guide the management of the siteover the next 15 to 20 years. The 
alternatives will incorporate various zoning and managementprescription 
to ensure resource preservation and public enjoyment of the site. The 
environmentalconsequences that could result from implementing the 
various alternatives will be evaluated inthe plan. Impact topics will 
include cultural and natural resources, visitor experience, 
parkoperations, the socioeconomic environment, impairment, and 
sustainability. The public will beinvited to express opinions about the 
management of the site early in the process through publicmeetings and 
other media; and will have an opportunity to review and comment on a 
draftGMP/EIS. Following public review processes outlined under NEPA, 
the final plan will becomeofficial, authorizing implementation of a 
preferred alternative. The target date for the Record ofDecision is 
December 2007.

    Dated: November 22, 2004.
Vidal Martinez,
Superintendent, George Washington Birthplace National Monument.
[FR Doc. 04-27606 Filed 12-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-M
#### § 1006.605 How does suspension differ from debarment?

Suspension differs from debarment in that—

| A suspending official . . . | A debarring official . . . |
| --- | --- |
| (a) Imposes suspension as a temporary status of ineligibility for procurement and nonprocurement transactions, pending completion of an investigation or legal proceedings | Imposes debarment for a specified period as a final determination that a person is not presently responsible. |
| (b) Must— (1) Have *adequate evidence* that there may be a cause for debarment of a person; and (2) Conclude that *immediate action* is necessary to protect the Federal interest | Must conclude, based on a *preponderance of the evidence,* that the person has engaged in conduct that warrants debarment. |
| (c) Usually imposes the suspension *first,* and then promptly notifies the suspended person, giving the person an opportunity to contest the suspension and have it lifted | Imposes debarment *after* giving the respondent notice of the action and an opportunity to contest the proposed debarment. |
### §300ee–21. Evaluations

The Secretary shall, directly or through grants or contracts, evaluate the services provided and activities carried out with payments to States under this part.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXV, formerly title XV, §2511, as added Pub. L. 100–607, title II, §221, Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3101; renumbered title XXV, Pub. L. 101–93, §5(e)(1), Aug. 16, 1989, 103 Stat. 612.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2511 of act July 1, 1944, was successively renumbered by subsequent acts, see section 238j of this title.
#### In the Matter of Long Island Gasoline Retailers Association, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding to review a determination of the respondent Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, which, after a hearing, *inter alia,*permitted certain premises to be used as a self-service gasoline station, petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered August 2, 1977, which denied the application and dismissed the proceeding. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements, payable jointly to respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs. We agree with Special Term that petitioners lack standing, either in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and section 668e-1.0 of the New York City Administrative Code or an action pursuant to section 51 of the General Municipal Law. As to the former, petitioners failed to show sufficient interest to satisfy even the recent more liberalized standing requirements (cf. *Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley,*38 NY2d 6; *Matter of Douglaston Civic Assn. v Galvin,*36 NY2d 1). Regarding the latter, only one petitioner alleged that he was a taxpayer and he failed to show any illegal act on the part of the board within the meaning of section 51 'of the General Municipal Law. Moreover, we hold that the board’s conditional approval of a self-service station is proper in view of section C19-73.0 (subd b, par 2) of The Administrative Code. Titone, J. P., Suozzi, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
### §287c. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §485B, as added Pub. L. 103–43, title XV, §1521(2), June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 180, which set out the purpose of the National Center for Human Genome Research, was renumbered section 464z–1 of act July 1, 1944, by Pub. L. 109–482, title I, §101(c)(4)(A), Jan. 15, 2007, 120 Stat. 3681, and transferred to section 285s of this title.

#### Prior Provisions

Another prior section 287c, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §483, as added Nov. 20, 1985, Pub. L. 99–158, §2, 99 Stat. 867, and amended, which related to purpose of National Center for Nursing Research, was renumbered section 464V of act July 1, 1944, by Pub. L. 103–43, title XV, §1511(b)(2), June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 179, and transferred to section 285q of this title.

A prior section 287c–1, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §484, as added Nov. 20, 1985, Pub. L. 99–158, §2, 99 Stat. 867, and amended, which related to specific authorities of the Director of the Center, was renumbered section 464W of act July 1, 1944, by Pub. L. 103–43, title XV, §1511(b)(2), June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 179, and transferred to section 285q–1 of this title.

A prior section 287c–2, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §485, as added Nov. 20, 1985, Pub. L. 99–158, §2, 99 Stat. 867, and amended, which related to the advisory council for the Center, was renumbered section 464X of act July 1, 1944, by Pub. L. 103–43, title XV, §1511(b)(2), June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 179, and transferred to section 285q–2 of this title.

A prior section 287c–3, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §486, as added Nov. 20, 1985, Pub. L. 99–158, §2, 99 Stat. 869, and amended, which related to biennial report of activities of the Center, was renumbered section 464Y of act July 1, 1944, by Pub. L. 103–43, title XV, §1511(b)(2), June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 179, and transferred to section 285q–3 of this title. Section 285q–3 was subsequently repealed by Pub. L. 114–255, div. A, title II, §2042(h)(1), Dec. 13, 2016, 130 Stat. 1073.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of John Kane, Appellant, v PPG Industries et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[715 NYS2d 771]

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed August 26, 1999, which ruled that the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier timely raised the Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 defense.

Claimant allegedly sustained a neck injury in June 1994 while lifting a pane of glass during the course of his employment. He filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits in October 1996. Due to a claim notification error, the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, Twin City Fire In*697surance Company, was not represented at the ensuing hearings which resulted in two decisions of a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) establishing accident, notice and causal relationship for claimant’s injury. When Twin City subsequently received notification of the claim, however, it disputed coverage and requested review of the WCLJ’s decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board.

Thereafter, the WCLJ’s findings with regard to the carrier on risk and the awards to claimant were rescinded and the matter was restored to the trial calendar to determine the proper carrier. At the ensuing hearing on January 27, 1998, Twin City appeared and raised the defense that claimant’s application for benefits was untimely pursuant to the two-year limitations period set forth in Workers’ Compensation Law § 28. The Board ruled that this defense was timely raised and claimant now appeals.

Claimant contends that Twin City waived the defense of Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 by failing to raise the timeliness issue in its. request for Board review of the WCLJ’s decisions. We are not persuaded. The defense of Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 is properly preserved so long as it is raised during “the first hearing * * * at which all parties in interest are present” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 28; *see, Matter of Boshart v St. Francis Hosp.,*226 AD2d 844; *Matter of Friedenzohn v Three Star Offset Print.,*176 AD2d 379, 380; *Matter of Brozzo v St. Joe Mins. Corp.,*175 AD2d 425, 426). Inasmuch as the identity of all of the proper parties was not established until the January 27, 1998 hearing when it was determined that Twin City was the proper carrier on risk, that hearing was the first hearing at which all parties in interest were present for purposes of Workers’ Compensation Law § 28. Thus, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s conclusion that the Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 defense was timely raised.

Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and rejected as lacking in merit.

Crew III, J. P., Peters, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
### §2297h–2. Method of sale

#### (a) Authorization

The Board of Directors of the Corporation, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, shall transfer ownership of the assets and obligations of the Corporation to the private corporation established under section 2297h–3 of this title (which may be consummated through a merger or consolidation effected in accordance with, and having the effects provided under, the law of the State of incorporation of the private corporation, as if the Corporation were incorporated thereunder).

#### (b) Board determination

The Board, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, shall select the method of transfer and establish terms and conditions for the transfer that will provide the maximum proceeds to the Treasury of the United States and will provide for the long-term viability of the private corporation, the continued operation of the gaseous diffusion plants, and the public interest in maintaining reliable and economical domestic uranium mining and enrichment industries.

#### (c) Adequate proceeds

The Secretary of the Treasury shall not allow the privatization of the Corporation unless before the sale date the Secretary of the Treasury determines that the method of transfer will provide the maximum proceeds to the Treasury consistent with the principles set forth in section 2297h–1(a) of this title.

#### (d) Application of securities laws

Any offering or sale of securities by the private corporation shall be subject to the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.), and the provisions of the Constitution and laws of any State, territory, or possession of the United States relating to transactions in securities.

#### (e) Expenses

Expenses of privatization shall be paid from Corporation revenue accounts in the United States Treasury.

(Pub. L. 104–134, title III, §3104, Apr. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 1321–336.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Securities Act of 1933, referred to in subsec. (d), is act May 27, 1933, ch. 38, title I, 48 Stat. 74, which is classified generally to subchapter I (§77a et seq.) of chapter 2A of Title 15, Commerce and Trade. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 77a of Title 15 and Tables.

The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, referred to in subsec. (d), is act June 6, 1934, ch. 404, 48 Stat. 881, which is classified principally to chapter 2B (§78a et seq.) of Title 15. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 78a of Title 15 and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the USEC Privatization Act and also as part of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, and not as part of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 which comprises this chapter.
#### John Bruzzi, Appellant, v Syosset Sport Center, Inc., Formerly Known as Jackson Ave. Corp., Doing Business as Syosset Sport Center, et al., Defendants, and Warren Eckel et al., Respondents.

[716 NYS2d 895]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), entered July 13, 1999, as, upon a jury verdict finding that the defendants Warren Eckel and Brian Eckel were not at fault in causing the plaintiffs injuries, failed to award damages against those defendants.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the judgment properly did not award damages against the individual defendants War*414ren Eckel and Brian Eckel (hereinafter the Eckels) as the jury did not render a verdict against those defendants. The jury specifically found that the Eckels were not at fault in causing the plaintiffs injuries. The plaintiff contends that the Eckels, who are the principals of the corporate defendant Syosset Sport Center, Inc. (hereinafter Syosset Sport), should be liable for acts of the corporation. The plaintiff, however, did not present any evidence that would justify piercing the corporate veil to impose liability on the Eckels *(see, Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin.,*82 NY2d 135). Moreover, there was no evidence that the jury verdict was reported incorrectly or that there was substantial confusion among the jurors in reaching the verdict. Accordingly, there is no reason to order a new trial *(see, Bedell v Hornick,*245 AD2d 538).

The issues raised by the respondents regarding the liability of Syosset Sport are not properly before us as Syosset Sport did not appeal from the judgment *(see, Bardi v Mosher,*197 AD2d 797). Ritter, J. P., Altman, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.
### §§2993 to 2993b. Repealed. Pub. L. 93–113, title VI, §603, Oct. 1, 1973, 87 Stat. 417

Section 2993, Pub. L. 88–452, title VIII, §820, as added Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §110, Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 724; amended Pub. L. 92–424, §26(c), Sept. 19, 1972, 86 Stat. 703, related to community service programs, providing in: subsec. (a) for term of service and range of activities; subsec. (b) for support and allowances; and subsec. (c) for allowance of service as non-Federal contribution.

Section 2993a, Pub. L. 88–452, title VIII, §821, as added Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §110, Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 724; amended Pub. L. 92–424, §26(d), Sept. 19, 1972, 86 Stat. 703, related to special volunteer programs.

Section 2993b, Pub. L. 88–452, title VIII, §822, as added Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §110, Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 724, related to demonstration projects to help young adult criminal offenders.

Such former provisions are covered by various sections as follows:

| Former Sections | Present Sections |
| --- | --- |
| 2993(a) | See 4992(a) |
| 2993(b) | See 4974(c) |
| 2993(c) | Repealed |
| 2993a | 4973(a), 4992(a) |
| 2993b | Repealed |
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL

 No. CV-08-2754 EM C

GEOFFREY ROTWEIN (CA SBN 58176)

LAW OFFICES OF GEOFFREY ROTWEIN

400 Montgomery Street, Second Floor

San Francisco, California 94104

Telefacsimile: (415) 397-0862

Telephone: (415) 397-0860

Attorney for Plaintiff

LEGAL ADDITIONS LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEGAL ADDITIONS LLC, a California

Limited Liability Corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JEROME KOWALSKI, et al,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-2754 EMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Defense counsel Alan G. Dowling having represented good cause due to illness to

continue the trial currently set for April 26, 2010, and plaintiff not having objected:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial in this case is continued from April 26, 2010, to

June 24 and 25, 2010, on each day 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

DATED: April , 2010 

HON. EDWARD M. CHEN

MAGISTRATE/JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:08-cv-02754-EMC Document 139 Filed 04/28/10 Page 1 of 1