alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 891.863 Maintenance as supportive housing units for elderly persons and persons with disabilities. ( a ) The mixed-finance owner must develop and continue to operate the same number of supportive housing units for elderly persons or persons with disabilities, as stated in the use agreement or other document establishing the number of assisted units, for a 40-year period.
( b ) If a mixed-finance development proposal provides that the Section 202 or 811 supportive housing units will be floating units, the mixed-finance owner must operate the HUD-approved percentage of Section 202 or 811 supportive housing units, and maintain the percentage distribution of bedroom sizes of Section 202 or 811 supportive housing units for the entire term of the very low-income use restrictions on the development. Any foreclosure, sale, or other transfer of the development must be subject to a covenant running with the land requiring the continued adherence to the very low-income use restrictions for the Section 202 or 811 supportive housing units.
( c ) The owner must ensure that Section 202 or 811 supportive housing units in the development are and continue to be comparable to unassisted units in terms of location, size, appearance, and amenities. If due to a change in the partnership structure it becomes necessary to establish a new owner partnership or to transfer the supportive housing project, the new or revised owner must be a single-purpose entity and the use restrictions must remain in effect as provided above.
#### Bertha Ayotte et al., Appellants, v. Board of Education of the Plattsburgh City School District, Respondent.

Appeal from orders of the Supreme Court, Clinton County, denying a motion for permission to file an amended notice of claim and denying a motion for reargument. The appellant Bertha Ayotte is alleged to have sustained injuries in a fall on a stairway in a building owned by the respondent Board of Education on June 28, 1958. On July 8, 1958 her son reported the accident to a Mrs. Goff, the secretary to the Superintendent of Schools. He did this orally giving her his mother’s name, address, the place of the accident, the nature of injuries as bruises and the name of the doctor to whom his mother was taken after the accident. This information was written down by Mrs. Goff who notified the respondent’s insurance carrier. The accident was investigated by the insurer and its representative called on Mrs. Ayotte but did not find her home and left his card. Mrs Ayotte then contacted the investigator who was to call on her again but never did. Sometime thereafter Mrs. Ayotte’s son was informed that the insurance company was not going to pay anything. In February, 1959 the appellant moved to amend the notice of claim which was alleged to have been served on July 8, 1958. The court below denied the motion holding that the papers did not reveal that any actual written notice of claim was served. On the motion for reargument the court stated that the information given to Mrs. Goff was at best a report of an accident and held that neither the existence of a written notice of claim nor service on a proper party was demonstrated. As a condition precedent to suit against a municipal corporation such as the respondent a written notice of claim must be served within 90 days after the accident in accordance with section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. Subdivision 6 of section 50-e provides that mistakes or irregularities in a notice of claim which do not pertain to the manner or time of service may be corrected, supplied or disregarded. Here the irregularities clearly evolve from the manner of service and the difficulty with the appellants’ position is the lack of a notice of claim which could be amended. A primary requisite is that the claim be in writing and the oral accident report certainly falls short of this. The appellants cite no ease in which an oral notice of claim has ever been sustained. Even this oral accident report gave no indication that it was a claim or that the appellants intended to file a claim. In addition the notice of claim must be served on a member of the board of education, a trustee or the clerk. Not only was there no service here, there being nothing in writing to serve, but further the person to whom the alleged notice was given was not a proper person to receive service. While this result may seem harsh since an investigation was made by the respondent’s insurer shortly after the accident, nevertheless, there has been such a complete failure to follow the statutory requirements that it is not possible to hold that a proper notice of claim was served. Orders unanimously affirmed, without costs.
§ 33.32 Determination of dust concentration. ( a ) Concentrations of airborne dust in the test space shall be determined by sampling with a midget impinger apparatus, and a light-field microscopic technique shall be employed in determining concentrations of dust in terms of millions of particles (5 microns or less in diameter) per cubic foot of air sampled.
( b ) Before a drilling test is started the surfaces of the test space shall be wetted; the test space shall be cleared of air-borne dust insofar as practicable by mechanical ventilation or other means; and an atmospheric sample, designated as a control sample, shall be collected during a 5-minute period to determine residual airborne dust in the test space.
( c ) A sample of airborne dust, designated as a test sample, shall be collected in the breathing zone of the drill operators during the drilling of each test hole. Time consumed in changing drill steel shall not be considered as drilling time and sampling shall be discontinued during such periods.
[Sched. 25B, 25 FR 6473, July 9, 1960, as amended at 26 FR 2599, Mar. 28, 1961]
Exhibit 32.2



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS



In connection with the Annual Report of Lazy Days R.V. Center, Inc. (the Corporation) on Form 10-K, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles L. Thibault, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(3) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.



|                         |  |     |  |                                                                    
|------------------------ |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: February 16, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Charles L. Thibault                                            
|                         |  |     |  | Charles L. Thibault                                                
|                         |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 99.2

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 Simon Property Group, Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period
ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen E. Sterrett, Chief Financial Officer of Simon Property
Group, Inc., the general partner of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/ Stephen E. SterrettStephen E. Sterrett
Chief Financial Officer,
Simon Property Group, Inc.,
the General Partner of the Company
May 15, 2003 |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Simon Property Group, L.P. and will be retained by
Simon Property Group, L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
#### Sophie Ulman et al., Appellants, v. Burton Duke, Respondent.

Oral motion by respondent on calendar call to dismiss appeal granted by default, with $10 costs, and appeal dismissed, the appellants having failed to file a record or brief. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette., JJ., concur.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**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 Annual Report of Airbee Wireless, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, E. Eugene Sharer,
      Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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 the operations of
                the
                Company.














/s/*E.
                Eugene Sharer*E.
                Eugene Sharer.Interim
                Chief Financial Officer


April
      16,
      2007
FERROVIAL AGROMAN, US Corp

North America Headquarters

9600 Great Hills Trail, Suite 200 E

Austin, TX 78759 

Phone (214) 531-2863

Attn: Pascual Pla

Email: pplagomis@ferrovial.us

March 3, 2016

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington DC, 20590 

To Whom It May Concern,

 Ferrovial Agroman US Corp has proudly been issued an exemption, Regulatory Docket No 

FAA-2015-1922 and exemption numbered 13669 for the purpose of aerial photography, video 

and survey. Ferrovial Agroman US Corp hereby respectfully requests an amendment to the 

exemption to allow two additional types of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) that fully comply

with the conditions of the Exemption.

 Ferrovial Agroman US Corp wishes to additionally operate an Ebee RTK drone manufactured 

by SenseFly, as well as the Trimble UX5 HP under the same terms and conditions contained in 

the Exemption. All operations of the additional UAS’ will be in full compliance with the terms of the 

Exemption.

 These survey grade mapping drones will add additional resources to Ferrovial Agroman US 

Corp allowing us to expand our capacity to get the job done. As this is an amendment to an 

existing exemption asking only for the addition of two types of unmanned aerial systems, 

Ferrovial Agroman US Corp respectfully submits that good cause exists so that notice does not 

need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment.

 Please feel free to contact me should you have any question or concerns concerning this 

request for an amendment to the Exemption.

Sincerely,

Pascual Pla

Ferrovial Agroman US Corp.

North America Headquarters

9600 Great Hills, Suite 200 E

Austin, TX 78759

214.531.2863 phone 

fax
#### Mary O’Shea et al., Respondents, v. Ceri Realty Company, Inc., Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the facts, without costs, and a new trial ordered unless plaintiffs stipulate to reduce the amounts of the recovery to $12,500 for Mary O’Shea and $1,500 for Martin O’Shea, in which event the judgment, as so modified, is affirmed, without costs. The record fails to sustain plaintiffs’ claim of a fracture. Settle order. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Noonan, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 250

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

#### § 250.1480 May the United States criminally prosecute me for violations under Federal oil and gas leases?

If you commit an act for which a civil penalty is provided at 30 U.S.C. 1719(d) and § 250.1460(b), the United States may pursue criminal penalties as provided at 30 U.S.C. 1720, in addition to any authority for prosecution under other statutes.
### SUBCHAPTER II—BILL OF RIGHTS
### §1665. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Oct. 5, 1992, Pub. L. 102–381, title I, 106 Stat. 1392, which authorized Territorial and local governments of American Samoa to make purchases through General Services Administration, was from the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993, and was not repeated in subsequent appropriation acts. See section 1469e of this title. Similar provisions were contained in the following prior appropriation acts:

Nov. 13, 1991, Pub. L. 102–154, title I, 105 Stat. 1007.

Nov. 5, 1990, Pub. L. 101–512, title I, 104 Stat. 1932.

Oct. 23, 1989, Pub. L. 101–121, title I, 103 Stat. 716.

Sept. 27, 1988, Pub. L. 100–446, title I, 102 Stat. 1797.

Dec. 22, 1987, Pub. L. 100–202, §101(g) [title I], 101 Stat. 1329–213, 1329–231.

Oct. 18, 1986, Pub. L. 99–500, §101(h) [title I], 100 Stat. 1783–242, 1783–258, and Oct. 30, 1986, Pub. L. 99–591, §101(h) [title I], 100 Stat. 3341–242, 3341–258.

Dec. 19, 1985, Pub. L. 99–190, §101(d) [title I], 99 Stat. 1224, 1238.

Oct. 12, 1984, Pub. L. 98–473, title I, §101(c) [title I], 98 Stat. 1837, 1851.

Nov. 4, 1983, Pub. L. 98–146, title I, 97 Stat. 931.

Dec. 30, 1982, Pub. L. 97–394, title I, 96 Stat. 1979.

Dec. 23, 1981, Pub. L. 97–100, title I, 95 Stat. 1401.

Dec. 12, 1980, Pub. L. 96–514, title I, 94 Stat. 2969.

Nov. 27, 1979, Pub. L. 96–126, title I, 93 Stat. 965.

Oct. 17, 1978, Pub. L. 95–465, title I, 92 Stat. 1289.

July 26, 1977, Pub. L. 95–74, title I, 91 Stat. 295.

July 31, 1976, Pub. L. 94–373, title I, 90 Stat. 1052.

Dec. 23, 1975, Pub. L. 94–165, title I, 89 Stat. 987.

Aug. 31, 1974, Pub. L. 93–404, title I, 88 Stat. 812.

Oct. 4, 1973, Pub. L. 93–120, title I, 87 Stat. 433.

Aug. 10, 1972, Pub. L. 92–369, title I, 86 Stat. 512.

Aug. 10, 1971, Pub. L. 92–76, title I, 85 Stat. 233.

July 31, 1970, Pub. L. 91–361, title I, 84 Stat. 673.

Oct. 29, 1969, Pub. L. 91–98, title I, 83 Stat. 151.

July 26, 1968, Pub. L. 90–425, title I, 82 Stat. 430.

June 24, 1967, Pub. L. 90–28, title I, 81 Stat. 63.

May 31, 1966, Pub. L. 89–435, title I, 80 Stat. 174.

June 28, 1965, Pub. L. 89–52, title I, 79 Stat. 179.

July 7, 1964, Pub. L. 88–356, title I, 78 Stat. 278.

July 26, 1963, Pub. L. 88–79, title I, 77 Stat. 102.

Aug. 9, 1962, Pub. L. 87–578, title I, 76 Stat. 339.

Aug. 3, 1961, Pub. L. 87–122, title I, 75 Stat. 250.

May 13, 1960, Pub. L. 86–455, title I, 74 Stat. 112.

June 23, 1959, Pub. L. 86–60, title I, 73 Stat. 101.

June 4, 1958, Pub. L. 85–439, title I, 72 Stat. 163.

July 1, 1957, Pub. L. 85–77, title I, 71 Stat. 265.

June 13, 1956, ch. 380, title I, 70 Stat. 265.

June 16, 1955, ch. 147, title I, 69 Stat. 149.

July 1, 1954, ch. 446, title I, 68 Stat. 372.

July 31, 1953, ch. 298, title I, 67 Stat. 273.

July 9, 1952, ch. 597, title I, 66 Stat. 457.

Aug. 31, 1951, ch. 375, title I, 65 Stat. 263.
<PAGE>


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


I,  Charles  Caverno,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report  on  Form  10-QSB  of  Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. for the quarter ended
March 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the
financial  condition  and  results of operations of Turbodyne Technologies, Inc.


                             By:     /s/ CHARLES  CAVERNO
                                     --------------------
                             Name:   CHARLES  CAVERNO

                             Title:  Chief  Financial  Officer

                             Date:   May  28,  2003
#### In the Matter of Melissa H. and Another. J. Henry Smith, as Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, Respondent; Mary H., Appellant.

In a child abuse proceeding, the mother of two daughters alleged to have been abused appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated February 15, 1978, which denied her application for a hearing pursuant to section 1028 of the Family Court Act. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a hearing pursuant to section 1028 of the Family Court Act, which hearing shall commence on April 18, 1978, at 10:00 a.m., and proceed until concluded. Section 1028 of the Family Court Act provides that, upon the application of a parent of a child temporarily removed for an order returning the child, the court shall hold a hearing within three court days of the application. The statute does not grant the court any discretion to deny a hearing once one has been demanded *(Matter of Michael Z,*40 AD2d 1034). The fact that the Commissioner of Social Services stated on February 15, 1978 that he was ready for the fact-finding hearing, was not sufficient reason to have denied the application for a section 1028 hearing.. Although the fact-finding hearing was commenced on April 10, 1978, and was continued on April 14, 1978, it was not concluded on that date, but was adjourned for several weeks. Notwithstanding the fact that the court is now holding the fact-finding hearing, under the unusual circumstances of this case the hearing pursuant to section 1028 of the Family Court Act is being directed to commence immediately because the mother should not be compelled to wait any longer for a right granted to her by statute. Suozzi, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.
#### § 1227.1 What is the purpose of this part?

This part provides procedures to delegate Federal royalty management functions to States under section 205 of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (the Act), 30 U.S.C. 1735, as amended by the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-185, August 13, 1996, as corrected by Pub. L. 104-200. This part also provides procedures to delegate only audit and investigation functions to States under Pub. L. 102-154 for solid mineral leases, geothermal leases and leases subject to section 8(g) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1337(g). This part does not apply to any inspection or enforcement responsibilities of the Bureau of Land Management for onshore leases or the ONRR Offshore Minerals Management program for leases on the Outer Continental Shelf.

[62 FR 43084, Aug. 12, 1997, as amended at 75 FR 61087, Oct. 4, 2010]
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Union News Company, a Division of the American News Company, Inc., and Retail Drug Cigar Soda Luncheonette Employees Union, Local 906, AFL-CIO.

Motion for a stay granted on condition that the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before December 22, 1960, with notice of argument for January 3, 1961, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. The stay contained in the order to show cause, dated November 23, 1960, is continued pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-119994) pertaining to the 2004 OmnibusIncentive Compensation Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-143679) pertaining to the Special Deferral Election Plan and in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 No. 333-138712 and Form S-3 No. 333-145158) and relatedProspectus of DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. of our reports dated February 22, 2008 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting ofDreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007. 

 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

February 22, 2008 

Los Angeles, California
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

IN THE MATTER OF THE CD

cod

-Her

PERSONAL RESTRAINT OF: ) No. 71888-6-1 fV>

C3~„

RICHARD LEE SCALES, ' DIVISION ONE

CD

Petitioner. UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED: October 20, 2014

V?

o

CO

—'C3

Per Curiam. Richard Scales challenges his judgment and sentence in King

County Superior Court No. 09-1-06193-5 SEA, claiming his term of confinement in

combination with his term of community custody exceeds the applicable statutory

maximum for count III, third degree assault. On April 9, 2010, the trial court imposed

standard range sentences of 116 months for first degree unlawful possession of a

firearm, 84 months for residential burglary, and 60 months for third degree assault. The

court also imposed a community custody term of 12 months for a crime against person

under RCW 9.94A.411, which could apply only to the third degree assault.

We accept the State's concession that the trial court exceeded its authority in

sentencing Scales to a term of community custody in addition to a standard range term

of confinement of 60 months for third degree assault. See RCW 9.94A.701(9).

Because Scales was sentenced in April 2010, the trial court, not Department of

Corrections, has the obligation to reduce the term of community custody to avoid a

sentence in excess of the statutory maximum. State v. Boyd, 174 Wn.2d 470, 275 P.3d

321 (2012): see also State v. Winborne, 167 Wn. App. 320, 329, 273 P.3d 454, review
No. 71888-6-1/2

denied, 174 Wn.2d 1019 (2012). Accordingly, we remand to the trial court to amend the

community custody term consistent with RCW 9.94A.701(9) to zero. See Boyd, 174

Wn.2d at 473.

Remanded.

For the court:
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 17

- 00405

- CR

David Duran

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 211th District Court

o f Denton County (F

- 2003

- 0427

- C )

June 2 1, 201 8

Opinion by Justice Me ier

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s order . It is ordered that the order of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bi ll Meier

Justice Bill Meier