alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(No. 91-CC-0796

#### Rosemarie Krolik, Claimant, *v.*The State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 17, 1993.*

Rosemarie Krolik, *pro se,*for Claimant.

Roland W. Burris, Attorney General (Margaret A. Marcouiller, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

*327OPINION

JANN, J.

Claimant seeks compensation for damage to her 1972 Pontiac Grand Prix which allegedly occurred on August 10, 1989, when the car was towed off of Interstate 55 by an Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) tow truck. Claimant ran out of gas near the Kedzie Avenue exit ramp and the California Avenue entrance ramp on the Stevenson Expressway. Claimant testified that she pulled the car off the roadway onto the shoulder and that it was not an impediment to other traffic. Claimant left the vehicle and went to purchase fuel.

Respondent’s employee, Charles LoCoco, an IDOT tow truck operator, testified that Claimant’s vehicle was left unattended in the roadway and was obstructing traffic. Mr. LoCoco testified that it is IDOT policy to move abandoned autos out of the roadway to the nearest safe location in as expedient a manner as possible. Mr. LoCoco further stated that as this incident occurred during rush hour at a point where there was no shoulder to the roadway, the vehicle presented a particularly dangerous situation. Mr. LoCoco towed the auto to a safe area.

Claimant claims the auto was negligently towed over the curb line which caused damage to the vehicle, rendering it inoperative in its present condition. Claimant seeks damages in the amount of $1,122 for alleged damage to the frame and transmission of her car.

*328Although a number of factual matters are disputed by the parties, the record is clear that Claimant left her auto unattended on or near a public roadway. Pursuant to the Illinois Vehicle Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 9514, par. 4 — 203(f), which in pertinent part reads as follows:

> “Any law enforcement agency in the case of a publicly owned real property may cause any motor vehicle abandoned or left unattended upon such property without permission to be removed by a towing service without liability for the costs of removal, transportation or storage or damage caused by such removal, transportation or storage.”

Assuming each and every allegation made by the Claimant is true and correct, the legislature has provided immunity for the State during the course of such removal and the Claimant has provided no facts which place her outside the scope of this immunity.

Wherefore, Claimants claim is hereby denied and this cause of action is dismissed with prejudice.
### §3611. Independent assessment

The Administrator may determine whether FedRAMP may use an independent assessment service to analyze, validate, and attest to the quality and compliance of security assessment materials provided by cloud service providers during the course of a determination of whether to use a cloud computing product or service.

(Added Pub. L. 117–263, div. E, title LIX, §5921(b), Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 3453.)

#### Repeal of Section

For repeal of section by section 5921(d)(1) of Pub. L. 117–263, see Effective Date of Repeal note below.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 117–263, div. E, title LIX, §5921(d)(1), Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 3458, provided that the repeal of this section is effective on the date that is 5 years after Dec. 23, 2022.

#### Construction

For rule of construction regarding section 5921 of Pub. L. 117–263, see section 5921(e) of Pub. L. 117–263, set out as a note under section 3607 of this title.
An equal opportunity employer 

1220 L Street, Northwest Russell White

Washington, DC 20005-4070 Health Sciences Manager 

Tel 202-682-8344 

Fax 202-682-8270 

whiter@api.org

January 7, 2014 

Byron J. Bunker, Division Director 

Compliance Division 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

2000 Traverwood Drive 

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 

RE: CAA Section 211(b) Fuels and Fuel Additives Health Effects Testing Regulation (Docket No. 

A-90-07): Report Amendment for HLS Study No. 00-6126 on Gasoline MTBE Vapor 

Condensate 

Dear Mr. Bunker: 

The American Petroleum Institute (API), on behalf of the Section 211(b) Research Group (RG), is 

submitting the following information to EPA as partial fulfillment of the CAA Section 211(b) 

Alternative Tier 2 requirements of the testing regulation: 

 Report Amendments for Gasoline MTBE Vapor Condensate Final Report: A 13-

Week Whole-Body Inhalation Toxicity Study in Rats with Neurotoxicity 

Assessments and 4-Week In Vivo Genotoxicity and Immunotoxicity Assessments 

(HLS Study No. 00-6126). 

The Report Amendment does not change the data nor conclusions of the original final report 

(submitted 23 March 2011). The Report Amendment; 1) added cover pages to Volumes I to IV; 2) 

updated the neurobehavioral data on the positive control in Appendix T; and 3) updated the Quality 

Assurance Statement to include the Report Amendment. The updated positive control data in 

Appendix T is now the same as was used for all the other 211(b) studies. 

The Report Amendment is being submitted to you at the EPA Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, Compliance Division, as part of the requirements of Clean Air Act Section 211(b)(2) and 

211(e). If you require further information or have any questions regarding this submission, please 

contact me. 

Regards, 

Russell D. White 

Encl (1): Final Report including Report Amendments for Gasoline MTBE Vapor Condensate Final 

Report: A 13-Week Whole-Body Inhalation Toxicity Study in Rats with Neurotoxicity 

Assessments and 4-Week In Vivo Genotoxicity and Immunotoxicity Assessments (HLS 

Study No. 00-6126). 

Cc: Joe Sopata, EPA
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,

      As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of HomeCom
Communications, Inc. (the "Registrant") for the period ended June 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Timothy R. Robinson, the Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
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, 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
Registrant.


                                             By:   /s/  Timothy R. Robinson
                                                   --------------------------
                                                   Name:  Timothy R. Robinson
                                                   Date:  September 24, 2003


     This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Registrant for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to HomeCom
Communications, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
### §385b. Repealed. Pub. L. 86–533, §1(18), June 29, 1960, 74 Stat. 248

Section, act June 29, 1948, ch. 733, §2, 62 Stat. 1108, related to reports to Congress of all activities undertaken pursuant to provisions of section 385a of this title.
#### Iris Forrest, Appellant, v. Milton R. Forrest, Respondent.

Order, entered on August 19, 1960, limiting the award of alimony *pendente lite*for the plaintiff and the award for the support of the infant children, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
§ 203.367 Contents of deed and supporting documents. The deed and supporting accompanying documents shall be as follows: ( a ) *Deed.* A deed conveying the property to the Federal Housing Commissioner. The deed shall: ( 1 ) Contain covenants which warrant title against acts of the grantor, and all claiming by, through, or under said grantor, if the grantor is the mortgagee or mortgagor; if the grantor is a party other than the mortgagee or mortgagor, the special warranty covenants may be limited or amended to accord with the law of the particular jurisdiction.
( 2 ) Recite nominal consideration, if such recital is adequate under the laws of the State in which the property is located or such other consideration as may be necessary to support the deed.
( b ) *Maps or survey.* A map or diagram showing property location with reference to public streets or roads or a survey, if available. When a part of the property has been taken by condemnation proceedings or conveyance in lieu of condemnation, a map or diagram showing the part taken and the property remaining is required.
( c ) *Credit documents.* The original credit and security instruments, if available or a deficiency judgment, if any, duly assigned or endorsed by the mortgagee, without recourse, to the Commissioner.
### Seasonal changes in concentrations of dissolved pesticides and organic carbon in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta, California, 1994-1996

By: James L. Orlando**Kathryn  Kuivila**

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds197

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area
Case 3:09-cv-00995-TEH Document 69 Filed 04/05/10 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:09-cv-00995-TEH Document 69 Filed 04/05/10 Page 2 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

04/05

Case 3:09-cv-00995-TEH Document 69 Filed 04/05/10 Page 3 of 3
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 270

To require establishment of an Office of Territorial Affairs in each Executive 

department and each independent establishment. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2005

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Resources 

A BILL

To require establishment of an Office of Territorial Affairs 

in each Executive department and each independent establishment.

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

3 SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT TO ESTABLISH OFFICE OF TER4 RITORIAL AFFAIRS. 

5 (a) REQUIREMENT.—The head of each Executive de6 partment and of each independent establishment shall—

7 (1) establish an Office of Territorial Affairs; 

8 and 

9 (2) appoint a Director of the Office of Terri10 torial Affairs, who shall be the head of such office. 
2

•HR 270 IH 

1 (b) FUNCTIONS OF DIRECTOR.—The Director shall 

2 serve as the liaison to the territories with respect to imple3 mentation of the programs of the Executive department 

4 or independent establishment. 

5 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

6 (1) DIRECTOR.—The term ‘‘Director’’ means 

7 Director of the Office of Territorial Affairs of an 

8 Executive department or independent establishment 

9 appointed under this section. 

10 (2) EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT.—The term ‘‘Ex11 ecutive department’’ means each Executive depart12 ment listed in section 101 of title 5, United States 

13 Code. 

14 (3) INDEPENDENT ESTABLISHMENT.—The 

15 term ‘‘independent establishment’’ has the meaning 

16 that term has under section 104 of title 5, United 

17 States Code, 

18 (4) TERRITORIES.—The term ‘‘territories’’ 

19 means Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, 

20 American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of North21 ern Mariana Islands.

Æ
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-3540 

_____________________________

LEON WOODBERRY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Stephen S. Everett, Judge.

March 13, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

OSTERHAUS, C.J., and RAY and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Victor D. Holder, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Robert Charles "Charlie" 

Lee, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
§ 3285.401 Anchoring instructions. ( a ) After blocking and leveling, the manufactured home must be secured against the wind by use of anchor assembly type installations or by connecting the home to an alternative foundation system. See § 3285.301.
( b ) For anchor assembly type installations, the installation instructions must require the home to be secured against the wind, as described in this section. The installation instructions and design for anchor type assemblies must be prepared by a registered professional engineer or registered architect, in accordance with acceptable engineering practice, the design loads of the MHCSS, and § 3285.301(d).
( c ) All anchoring and foundation systems must be capable of meeting the loads that the home was designed to withstand required by part 3280, subpart D of this chapter, as shown on the home's data plate. Exception: Manufactured homes that are installed in less restrictive roof load zone and wind zone areas may have foundation or anchorage systems that are capable of meeting the lower design load provisions of the Standards, if the design for the lower requirements is either provided in the installation instructions or the foundation and anchorage system is designed by a professional engineer or registered architect.
( d ) The installation instructions are to include at least the following information and details for anchor assembly-type installations: ( 1 ) The maximum spacing for installing diagonal ties and any required vertical ties or straps to ground anchors;
( 2 ) The minimum and maximum angles or dimensions for installing diagonal ties or straps to ground anchors and the main chassis members of the manufactured home;
( 3 ) Requirements for connecting the diagonal ties to the main chassis members of the manufactured home. If the diagonal ties are attached to the bottom flange of the main chassis beam, the frame must be designed to prevent rotation of the beam;
( 4 ) Requirements for longitudinal and mating wall tie-downs and anchorage;
( 5 ) The method of strap attachment to the main chassis member and ground anchor, including provisions for swivel-type connections;
( 6 ) The methods for protecting vertical and diagonal strapping at sharp corners by use of radius clips or other means; and
( 7 ) As applicable, the requirements for sizing and installation of stabilizer plates.
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, David Goronkin, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of FamousDave’s of America, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this quarterly report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this quarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designatedunder our system, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterlyreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis quarterly report basedon such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this quarterly report any changes in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s first quarter that has materiallyaffected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent function):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Dated: November 9, 2004 /s/ David Goronkin  David Goronkin President and Chief Executive Officer
### §7274q. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 105–85, div. C, title XXXI, §3158, Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 2046; Pub. L. 108–7, div. D, title V, §506, Feb. 20, 2003, 117 Stat. 158, which related to transfers of real property at certain Department of Energy facilities, was renumbered section 4831 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(k)(11), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1785, and is classified to section 2811 of Title 50, War and National Defense.
Exhibit
      32.1




**CERTIFICATION**




I,
      Steven
      Walin, Chief Executive Officer of GVI Security Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”),
      hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(i)
      The
      Company’s accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended
      March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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




/s/
      Steven Walin


Steven
      Walin


Chief
      Executive Officer


Dated:
      May 15, 2006
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

November 1, 2011 

Dr. Chung S. Liu, Deputy Executive Officer 

Science and Technology Advancement 

South Coast Air Quality Management District 

21865 Copley Drive 

Diamond Bar, California 91765-4178 

 

Dear Dr. Liu: 

Thank you for your submission of the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) 2011 

Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan. We have reviewed the submitted document and have 

found that the plan is complete, informative, detailed and meets all of the requirements of 40 CFR 58.10. 

We have also reviewed comments submitted during the public comment period held by SCAQMD and 

have determined that the current network, as described in the annual network plan, meets or exceeds 

current EPA minimum monitoring requirements set forth at 40 CFR 58, Appendix D, Section 4.7.1. 

While this letter serves as official approval of the annual network plan, it does not constitute approval of 

the system modifications that are proposed in the plan for the future. We will continue to work with 

your district to review system changes as they proceed. 

If you have any questions regarding this letter or the enclosed comments, please feel free to contact me 

at (415) 972-3851 or Meredith Kurpius at (415) 947-4534. 

 Sincerely, 

 

/s/ 

 

 Matthew Lakin, Manager 

 Air Quality Analysis Office 

 Air Division 

cc: Dr. Phil Fine, SCAQMD 

Dr. Jason Low, SCAQMD 

Karen Magliano, CARB
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Mandistine Whitsell, Respondent, v. Academy Auto Sales et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The appellants, employer and carrier, do not dispute the finding of the board that the claimant is decedent’s widow; or that there is sufficient evidence to find she is his widow. Her claim was not filed until May 4, 1960, more than two years after the death on September 15, 1957. The essential question in the case is whether the claim filed within the two-year period by the decedent’s niece, who was not a dependent, is sufficient to protect the award to the widow. The claim filed by the niece November 11, 1957 was entitled “Claim for Compensation in Death Case ” and followed the general language of the form as a “ claim ” under the statute “ for compensation arising out of the death ” of decedent. Certain “ information ” was submitted in support of the claim, including the information that decedent was not survived by a widow. Neither the inaccurae3’' of information “ furnished ” nor the fact the widow herself did not file this claim, defeats its effect as a valid death claim. The statute does not require any particular person to file the claim. The bar of section 28 applies unless “ a claim ” has been filed with the chairman. Moreover, the carrier and employer were not misled. In a report by the employer to the board on August 1, 1957, immediately after the accident, the question of “Marital status” was answered “Yes”; and on January 27, 1958, three months after the claim signed by the niece was filed, the carrier reported to the board that “payment” of compensation “has not begun” because “Death case awaiting information (if any) or dependency proofs ” and because of *“*Identification — formal proof ”. Thus, as the board held, the claim filed November 11,1957 is sufficient. The additional ground found by thS board that the payment of funeral expenses was an advance payment of compensation is not reached and not necessary to decision. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present—Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.