alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Philip Weiss, Respondent, v City of New York, Appellant.

[717 NYS2d 548]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County *37(Louis York, J.), entered on March 3, 1998, which granted plaintifFs motion to vacate an order of the same court (Bruce Wright, J.), entered on or about December 15, 1994, which, upon reargument, dismissed the complaint, and directed that the case be restored to the trial calendar for an assessment of damages, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the matter remanded to Justice York for determination of defendant’s motion for reargument.

In the matter at issue, Justice Wright presided at an assessment of damages, granted plaintiffs motion to set aside the jury’s verdict therein, decided defendant’s motion to reargue under the mistaken impression that no opposition had been submitted, and, subsequently, retired from the bench. Under the circumstances, Justice York properly treated Justice Wright’s order as one entered on default and vacated it pursuant to CPLR 5015. Having done so, he then should have proceeded to decide the restored motion to reargue. Judiciary Law § 21 prohibits a trial-level Judge from deciding a matter in which oral argument or testimony was presented in court and he or she was not present and sitting as a Judge. However, it does not prohibit such a Judge from deciding such a matter where, as here, purely legal questions are at issue, all relevant argument is preserved in the record, and the Judge is not required to weigh conflicting testimony or assess credibility *(see, Plunkett v Emergency Med. Serv.,*234 AD2d 162, 163). Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.
Exhibit
32.2
 
 Section
1350 Certification of Principal 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 INX Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A
for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Brian Fontana, Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §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/
      BRIAN FONTANABrian
      Fontana, Vice President
                            and
      Chief Financial Officer
                              
                              September
      2, 2009
[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:****Population: education:educational attainment by economic characteristics and marital status: basedupon tabulations from the Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940.**
 
Parts: 010203
 
SuDoc Number:C 3.940-2:P 81/36
Item Number:0213 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001105087
 
August 27, 2019
Exhibit 99.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Capital  Beverage  Corporation  (the
Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Carmine
Stella, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss. 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.

/s/Carmine Stella

Carmine Stella
Chief Executive Officer
August 19, 2002
### §290ee–5a. Sobriety treatment and recovery teams

#### (a) In general

The Secretary may make grants to States, units of local government, or tribal governments to establish or expand Sobriety Treatment And Recovery Team (referred to in this section as "START") or other similar programs to determine the effectiveness of pairing social workers or mentors with families that are struggling with a substance use disorder and child abuse or neglect in order to help provide peer support, intensive treatment, and child welfare services to such families.

#### (b) Allowable uses

A grant awarded under this section may be used for one or more of the following activities:

(1) Training eligible staff, including social workers, social services coordinators, child welfare specialists, substance use disorder treatment professionals, and mentors.

(2) Expanding access to substance use disorder treatment services and drug testing.

(3) Enhancing data sharing with law enforcement agencies, child welfare agencies, substance use disorder treatment providers, judges, and court personnel.

(4) Program evaluation and technical assistance.

#### (c) Program requirements

A State, unit of local government, or tribal government receiving a grant under this section shall—

(1) serve only families for which—

(A) there is an open record with the child welfare agency; and

(B) substance use disorder was a reason for the record or finding described in paragraph (1); 1 and

(2) coordinate any grants awarded under this section with any grant awarded under section 629g(f) of this title focused on improving outcomes for children affected by substance abuse.

#### (d) Technical assistance

The Secretary may reserve not more than 5 percent of funds provided under this section to provide technical assistance on the establishment or expansion of programs funded under this section from the National Center on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title V, §550A, formerly §550, as added Pub. L. 115–271, title VIII, §8214, Oct. 24, 2018, 132 Stat. 4116; renumbered §550A, Pub. L. 117–328, div. FF, title I, §1237, Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5677.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 290ee–10 of this title prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 117–328.

1 So in original. Probably should be "subparagraph (A)".
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 06-926 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Research and Development 

 Memorandum of Agreement between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and ITALY 

Signed at Washington and Rome 

September 15 and 26, 2006 

with 

Annex 

 and 

Appendix 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
ITALY 

Defense: Research and Development 

 Memorandum of agreement signed at 

 Washington and Rome 

 September 15 and 26, 2006; 

 Entered into force September 26, 2006. 

 With annex and appendix.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4387 

To allow for a reasonable compliance deadline for certain States subject 

to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 18, 2012 

Mr. POMPEO (for himself, Ms. JENKINS, Mr. YODER, and Mr. HUELSKAMP) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To allow for a reasonable compliance deadline for certain 

States subject to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FINDING. 

4 Congress finds that an approximate 180-day period 

5 before which States and utilities are required to comply 

6 with certain new rules regarding maximum permissible 

7 emissions of ozone, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen oxides 

8 under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule is insufficient 

9 for those States and utilities to achieve that compliance. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4387 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

2 In this Act: 

3 (1) ADMINISTRATOR.—The term ‘‘Adminis4 trator’’ means the Administrator of the Environ5 mental Protection Agency. 

6 (2) CLEAN AIR INTERSTATE RULE.—The term 

7 ‘‘Clean Air Interstate Rule’’ means the final rule 

8 promulgated by the Administrator entitled ‘‘Rule To 

9 Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

10 Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revi11 sions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX 

12 SIP Call’’ (70 Fed. Reg. 25162 (May 12, 2005)). 

13 (3) CROSS-STATE AIR POLLUTION RULE.—The 

14 term ‘‘Cross-State Air Pollution Rule’’ means the 

15 final rule promulgated by the Administrator entitled 

16 ‘‘Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Trans17 port of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Cor18 rection of SIP Approvals’’ (76 Fed. Reg. 48208 (Au19 gust 8, 2011)) and revisions to that final rule enti20 tled ‘‘Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans To 

21 Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

22 Matter and Ozone’’ (77 Fed. Reg. 10324 (February 

23 21, 2012)). 

24 SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF COMPLIANCE DEADLINE. 

25 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a State 

26 that was not required to reduce emissions or levels of 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4387 IH

1 ozone, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen oxides under the Clean 

2 Air Interstate Rule shall not be required to comply with 

3 any requirement under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

4 before January 1, 2017. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         1020173
<NAME>                        NEW YORK REGIONAL RAIL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                                     87,255
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                              788,593
<ALLOWANCES>                               58,715
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1,043,305
<PP&E>                                     4,200,138
<DEPRECIATION>                             158,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             5,488,754
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      5,999,988
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                500,000
<COMMON>                                   17,024
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,140,556)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               5,488,754
<SALES>                                    6,781,199
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           6,781,199
<CGS>                                      5,801,277
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              5,801,277
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (184,081)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (268,292)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (268,292)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                               (268,292)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (.00)


</TABLE>
Compr essors/Engines Dehydrators Pipelines Pneumatics/Contr ols T

anks V

alves W ells Other 

## PRO Fact Sheet No. 703 

# Green Completions

Partner Reported Opportunities (PROs) for Reducing Methane Emissions



### T

echnology/Practice Overview Description When gas wells ar e drilled, a final step befor e pr oducing the natural gas to a sales line is to “clean-up” the well-bor e and r eservoir immediately surr ounding the well. T raditionally this well completion step involves pr oducing the well to open pits or tankage wher e sand, cuttings, and r eservoir fluids ar e collected for disposal and the pr oduced natural gas is vented to the atmospher e. Partners r eported using a “gr een completion” method in which equipment is br ought on site to clean up the gas suf ficiently for delivery to sales. The additional equipment may include considerably mor e tankage, special gas-liquidsand separator traps, and portable gas dehydration. In addition to r educing methane emissions, gr een completions pr oduce an immediate r evenue str eam with the pr oduced natural gas and gas liquids, less solid waste and water pollution, and a safer operating practice. 

### Operating Requirements Sales line connection and sales agr eements need to be arranged befor e the well drilling is completed. 

### Applicability This applies to the drilling of all natural gas wells.



### Methane Emissions Reductions The methane emissions r eduction is estimated as the total r ecover ed fr om 63 wells r eported by a partner. This partner r eported natural gas emissions r eduction of 7,410 Mcf per year, which is 70 per cent of the gas formerly vented to the atmospher e. 

### Applicable sector(s): Pr oduction Pr ocessing T ransmission and Distribution



### Partners re porting this PRO: BP , ConocoPhillips Company 

### Other re lated PROs: Install Downhole Separator Pumps, Connect Casing to VRU, Install Compr essors to Captur e Casinghead Gas



### Methane Savings: 7,000 Mcf per year Costs Capital Costs (including installation) <$1,000 $1,000 – $10,000 >$10,000 Operating and Maintenance Costs (annual) <$100 $100-$1,000 >$1,000 

### Payback (Y ears) 0–1 1–3 3–10 >10 

### Benefits Reducing methane emissions was the primar y benefit of the project.

### Economic Analysis Basis for Costs and Savings Methane savings of 7,000 Mcf per year ar e based on completing 60 wells per year at the average r ecovery r eported by the partner. The partner also r eported r ecovering a total of 156 barr els of condensate fr om the 63 wells, an average of 2.5 barr e ls per well. 

### Discussion The capital cost includes additional portable separators, sand traps, and tanks at a cost r eported by the partner of $180,000. This equipment would be moved fr om well-to-well, so amortizing the cost over 10 years and doing 60 wells per year , the annual capital charges would be under $10,000. Incr emental operating costs ar e assumed to be over $1,000 per year . At a natural gas price of $3 per Mcf and condensate price of $19 per barr el, gr een completions will pay back the costs in about 1 year

.

Last updated: September 2004
NUMBER 13-10-00507-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

MARILYN TINDOL, Appellant,

v.

GARY PHILLIP TINDOL, Appellees.

On appeal from the 36th District Court 

of Live Oak County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

This case is before the Court on appellant’s agreed motion to set aside the trial 

court’s judgment without regard to the merits and remand to the trial court for rendition of 

judgment. The parties have reached an agreement with regard to the disposition of the 

matters currently on appeal. Pursuant to agreement, the parties request this Court to set 
2

aside the trial court=s judgment without regards to the merits, and remand this case to the 

trial court for rendition of a judgment in accordance with the agreement of the parties. 

The joint motion to set aside and remand is GRANTED. Accordingly, we SET 

ASIDE the trial court=s judgment without regard to the merits, and REMAND this case to 

the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties= agreement. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B). Costs will be taxed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

6th day of October, 2011.
112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4389 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 19 East Merced Street in Fowler, California, 

as the ‘‘Cecil E. Bolt Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4389 EH

1 SECTION 1. CECIL E. BOLT POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 19 East Merced Street in Fowler, 

4 California, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Cecil 

5 E. Bolt Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Cecil E. Bolt Post 

10 Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 20, 

2012. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4389 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostOffice’’. Fowler, California, as the ‘‘Cecil E. Bolt Post al Service located at 19 East Merced Street in
#### Abe J. Kaufman, Doing Business under the Name of Turnpike Realty, Respondent, v. Adelaide D. Suker et al., Appellants.

*962Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 217
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 217 appear at 68 FR 51362, Aug. 26, 2003.

§ 217.11 Discrimination prohibited. ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) No qualified handicapped person shall, on the basis of handicap, be subjected to discrimination in employment under any program or activity to which this part applies.
( 2 ) A recipient shall make all decisions concerning employment under any program or activity to which this part applies in a manner which ensures that discrimination on the basis of handicap does not occur and may not limit, segregate, or classify applicants or employees in any way that adversely affects their opportunities or status because of handicap.
( 3 ) A recipient may not participate in a contractual or other relationship that has the effect of subjecting qualified handicapped applicants or employees to discrimination prohibited by this subpart. The relationships referred to in this subparagraph include relationships with employment and referral agencies, with labor unions, with organizations providing or administering fringe benefits to employees of the recipient, and with organizations providing training and apprenticeships.
( b ) *Specific activities.* The provisions of this subpart apply to: ( 1 ) Recruitment, advertising, and the processing of applications for employment;
( 2 ) Hiring, upgrading, promotion, award of tenure, demotion, transfer, layoff, termination, right of return from layoff, and rehiring;
( 3 ) Rates of pay or any other form of compensation and changes in compensation;
( 4 ) Job assignments, job classifications, organizational structures, position descriptions, lines of progression, and seniority lists;
( 5 ) Leaves of absence, sick leave, or any other leave;
( 6 ) Fringe benefits available by virtue of employment, whether or not administered by the recipient;
( 7 ) Selection and financial support for training, including apprenticeship, professional meetings, conferences, and other related activities, and selection for leaves of absence to pursue training;
( 8 ) Employer sponsored activities, including those that are social or recreational or recreational; and
( 9 ) Any other term, condition, or privilege of employment.
( c ) A recipient's obligation to comply with this subpart is not affected by any inconsistent term of any collective bargaining agreement to which it is a party.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOHN BRIEZ, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. CR 08-00730 WHA

ORDER TO CONTINUE

SENTENCING DATE OF

DEFENDANT BRIEZ

Defendant Briez and the government have stipulated to continue his sentencing hearing

for six weeks on the grounds that defendant’s counsel desires additional time to review

defendant’s medical history. Defense counsel states that defendant Briez was in a coma for a

long period of time as a result of a head injury that he sustained in a motorcycle accident. 

Defense counsel states that he needs additional time to review this medical history so it may be

included in the presentence report.

The continuance of defendant’s sentencing is GRANTED IN PART. The sentencing hearing

shall be continued to MAY 11, 2010, AT 2:00 P.M.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cr-00730-WHA Document 1622 Filed 04/08/10 Page 1 of 1
§ 19.10-4 Death or divorce of a spouse and remarriage after retirement. ( a ) If the marriage of an annuitant who received a reduced annuity at retirement under § 19.10-2 to provide a survivor annuity for a spouse is dissolved by divorce or by death of the spouse, the retiree's annuity shall be recomputed, if necessary, as of the first of the month following the death or divorce. If the marriage was dissolved by death, the annuity shall be recomputed and paid at its full amount. If the marriage is dissolved by divorce, procedures in § 19.11-2(b) shall be followed.
( b ) In the event an annuitant affected by this paragraph remarries, the annuitant may elect within one year of remarriage to provide a survivor annuity for the new spouse equal in amount to the survivor benefit formerly in effect for the previous spouse less any amount committed for a former spouse. The annuity of a retiree making such an election shall be reduced effective on the first day of the first month which begins at least one year after the remarriage to the amount that would have been payable had there been no recomputation under paragraph (a) of this section.
Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2014 

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b). 

1. Case No. SD32798 

 Re: STATE OF MISSOURI, 

 Plaintiff-Respondent, 

 v. 

 LARRY EUGENE STURDEVANT, 

 Defendant-Appellant
#### Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., Respondent, v. Bermar Theatre, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied.