alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 581.3 Collecting the information. ( a ) *Canvass of landholding agencies.* On a quarterly basis, HUD will canvass landholding agencies to collect information about property described as unutilized, underutilized, excess, or surplus, in surveys conducted by the agencies under section 202 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (40 U.S.C. 483), Executive Order 12512, and 41 CFR part 101-47.800. Each canvass will collect information on properties not previously reported and about property reported previously the status or classification of which has changed or for which any of the information reported on the property checklist has changed. ( 1 ) HUD will request descriptive information on properties sufficient to make a reasonable determination, under the criteria described below, of the suitability of a property for use as a facility to assist the homeless.
( 2 ) HUD will direct landholding agencies to respond to requests for information within 25 days of receipt of such requests.
( b ) *Agency annual report.* By December 31 of each year, each landholding agency must notify HUD regarding the current availability status and classification of each property controlled by the agency that: ( 1 ) Was included in a list of suitable properties published that year by HUD, and
( 2 ) Remains available for application for use to assist the homeless, or has become available for application during that year.
( c ) *GSA inventory.* HUD will collect information, in the same manner as described in paragraph (a) of this section, from GSA regarding property that is in GSA's current inventory of excess or surplus property.
( d ) *Change in status.* If the information provided on the property checklist changes subsequent to HUD's determination of suitability, and the property remains unutilized, underutilized, excess or surplus, the landholding agency shall submit a revised property checklist in response to the next quarterly canvass. HUD will make a new determination of suitability and, if it differs from the previous determination, republish the property information in the Federal Register. For example, property determined unsuitable for national security concerns may no longer be subject to security restrictions, or property determined suitable may subsequently be found to be contaminated.
Effective Date Note
Effective Date Note: At 56 FR 23794, 23795, May 24, 1991, part 581 was added, effective on May 24, 1991, except for § 581.3 which will not become effective until approved by the District Court for the District of Columbia, pending further proceedings.
#### Shamrock Gas & Oil, Inc., Respondent, v. Sterling Stations, Inc., Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: City Court set aside the jury’s verdict of no cause for action on the ground that the verdict was “ contrary to the weight of evidence and contrary to law”. The verdict was not contrary to the law as charged by the court and although the charge was erroneous the failure of either party to except thereto made the court’s charge the law of the case. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 446; *Brown*v. *Du Frey,*1 N Y 2d 190, 196.) The jury’s verdict, however, was against the weight of the evidence and was, therefore, properly set aside. Defendant made no effort to disprove that it was indebted to plaintiff for gasoline delivered. Defendant attempted, however, to offset plaintiff’s claim by showing that plaintiff had not performed certain promises it made in connection with certain improvements. Defendant asserted its claim by way of a conclusory affirmative defense in its answer, but failed to prove any damages to defeat plaintiff’s claim. Under these circumstances justice requires the granting of a new trial. (Appeal from order of Monroe County Court, affirming an order of Rochester City Court which granted a motion by plaintiff to set aside the verdict of the jury of no cause of action, and for a new trial in a breach of contract action.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
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 Verdant Technology Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Curd, 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, that:



1)

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



2)

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



November 17, 2008



| |     |                                              
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ DAVID J. CURD                            
| |     | David J. Curd
Interim Chief Financial Officer
Argued and submitted March 31,

affirmed April 29, 1998

#### Gabriel C. SALCEDO, *Appellant, v.*STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, *Respondent.*

(9605-03372; CA A96988)

957 P2d 203

Clayton H. Morrison argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Law Offices of Clayton H. Morrison.

J. Marie Bischman argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were J. Philip Parks and Parks, Bauer, Sime *&*Winkler, LLP.

Before De Muniz, Presiding Judge, and Deits, Chief Judge, and Haselton, Judge.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. *Wright v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.,*152 Or App 101, 952 P2d 73 (1998).
#### In re GALL.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 27, 1905.)

In the matter of the judicial settlement of the account of Amelia Gall, as administratrix of Joseph Gall, deceased. No opinion. Order of the Surrogate’s Court of Kings county, denying motion of administratrix to vacate decree, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
§ 972.106 Procedure for required conversion of public housing developments to tenant-based assistance. ( a ) A PHA must annually review its public housing inventory and identify developments, or parts of developments, which must be converted to tenant-based assistance, in accordance with §§ 972.121-972.127.
( b ) With respect to any public housing development that is identified under paragraph (a) of this section, the PHA generally must develop a 5-year plan for removal of the affected public housing units from the inventory, in accordance with §§ 972.130-972.136.
( c ) The PHA may proceed to convert the development if HUD approves the conversion plan.
EXHIBIT 32.1

 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 Annual Report of HeartSTAT Technology, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Garrett K. Krause, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive and 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, that:

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

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


/s/ GARRETT K. KRAUSE
------------------------------------------
Garrett K. Krause, Chief Executive Officer
§ 18.29 Access openings and covers, including unused lead-entrance holes. ( a ) Access openings in explosion-proof enclosures will be permitted only where necessary for maintenance of internal parts such as motor brushes and fuses.
( b ) Covers for access openings shall meet the same requirements as any other part of an enclosure except that threaded covers shall be secured against loosening, preferably with screws having heads requiring a special tool. (See Figure 1 in Appendix II.)
( c ) Holes in enclosures that are provided for lead entrances but which are not in use shall be closed with metal plugs secured by spot welding, brazing, or equivalent. (See Figure 10 in Appendix II.)
AUTHORIZATION

        Know all by these presents, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and
appoints each of John M. Lowber, Bonnie J. Paskvan, and Lynda L. Tarbath,
signing singly, the undersigned's true and lawful attorney-in-fact to:

(1) execute for and on behalf of the undersigned, in the undersigned's capacity
as an affiliate of General Communication, Inc. (the "Company"), Form 3, Form 4,
and Form 5, in accordance with Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the rules thereunder;

(2) do and perform any and all acts for and on behalf of the undersigned which
may be necessary or desirable to complete and execute any such Form 3, Form 4,
and Form 5, complete and execute any amendment or amendments thereto, and
timely file such form with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission and any stock exchange or similar authority; and

(3) take any other action of any type whatsoever in connection with the
foregoing which, in the opinion of such attorney-in-fact, may be of benefit to,
in the best interest of, or legally required by, the undersigned, it being
understood that the documents executed by such attorney-in-fact on behalf of
the undersigned pursuant to this Power of Attorney shall be in such form and
shall contain such terms and conditions as such attorney-in-fact may approve
in such attorney-in-fact's discretion.

        The undersigned hereby grants to each such attorney-in-fact full power
and authority to do and perform any and every act and thing whatsoever
requisite, necessary, or proper to be done in the exercise of any of the rights
and powers herein granted, as fully to all intents and purposes as the
undersigned might or could do if personally present, with full power of
substitution or revocation, hereby ratifying and confirming all that such
attorney-in-fact, or such attorney-in-fact's substitute or substitutes, shall
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of this power of attorney and the
rights and powers herein granted. The undersigned acknowledges that the
foregoing attorneys-in-fact, in serving in such capacity at the request of the
undersigned, are not assuming, nor is the Company assuming, any of the
undersigned's responsibilities to comply with Section 16 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

        This Power of Attorney shall remain in full force and effect until the
undersigned is no longer required to file Form 3, Form 4, and Form 5 with
respect to the undersigned's holdings of and transactions in securities issued
by the Company, unless earlier revoked by the undersigned in a signed writing
delivered to the foregoing attorneys-in-fact.


                                   1


       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Power of Attorney to
be executed as of this 12th day of September 2007.


                                 /s/
                                 ------------------------
                                 Signature


                                 Stephen R. Mooney
                                 ------------------------
                                 Print Name
#### Irving Barelko, Respondent, v. Powder Power Tool Corp. et al., Defendants, and Lubanko Tool Co., Inc., Appellant.

Order entered on December 12, 1961 affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. Concur — Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.; Breitel, J. P., concurs in the following memorandum: I concur solely upon the ground that appellant’s laches constitute a bar to the belated assertion of the *res judicata*defense. Appellant is in no better position than was the codefendant in this action who was also denied leave to assert the defense in an amended answer. In this court laches was the only ground assigned for the denial of such leave (14 A D 2d 670). However, I would have otherwise regarded the defense as arguably sufficient for the purpose of being tendered in a motion for leave to amend the answer. It appears from the pleadings that appellant’s tort liability, if any, may be entirely derived from that of another codefendant, the actual maker of the offending device, which plaintiff sued in a prior action. If so, appellant would have a right of indemnity against that defendant, and the dismisal of the prior action with prejudice might bar the present action against appellant, even though it was not a party to the prior lawsuit *(Good Health Dairy Prods. Corp.*v. *Emery,*275 N. Y. 14; cf. *Elder*v. *New York & Penn. Motor Express,*284 N. Y. 350; see Anno. Res Judicata 133 A. L. R. 181; Restatement, Judgments, § 96; 1 Freeman, Judgments [5th ed.], §§ 451, 452).
Second District.

#### The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Clarence Finefield, plaintiff in error.

Gen. No. 7,186.

Prosecution under Prohibition Act. Defendant found guilty. Error to the Circuit Court of Livingston county; the Hon. Stevens R. Baker, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed August 13, 1923.

Rehearing denied October 2, 1923.

Arthur A. Lowry, for plaintiff in error. John H. MeFadden, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; Robert M. Niven, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice Partlow

delivered the opinion of the court.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Certificationof Chief Executive OfficerPursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, BruceJ. Wood, certify that:

 

1.     Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Weider NutritionInternational, Inc.;

 

2.     Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.     Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)   Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b)   Evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c)   Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

 

(a)   All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

(b)   Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: April 14, 2004 | /s/  BRUCE J. WOOD |   |
|----------------------|------------------------------|--------|
|                 |  Bruce J. Wood          |
|                 | Chief Executive Officer      |

 

----
#### PEOPLE ex rel. COLUMBIA CHEMICAL CO. v. O’BRIEN, Secretary of State.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 14, 1905.)

Proceedings by the people of the state of New York, on the relation of the Columbia Chemical Company, a domestic corporation, against John F. O’Brien, Secretary of State of the state of New York. No opinion. ¡Motion granted, and the order as proposed substituted for the order entered herein January 19, 1905.
#### Alice Sulahian, Appellant, v. City of New York et al., Respondents.

— Order, entered on February 6, 1963, denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of an order revoking her preference on the Trial Calendar under former subdivision 5 of rule V of the New York County Supreme Court Trial Term Rules, now Special Rule of the Appellate Division, First Department, regulating the granting of preferences in actions for personal injuries, effective March 1, 1962, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion granted. To penalize plaintiff by revoking a preference theretofore granted following her failure to accept an offer consequent on a pretrial exploration of the possibility of settlement constitutes a gross abuse of discretion. *(Wolff*v. *Láveme, Inc.,*17 A D 2d 213.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Bastow, JJ.
### §7505. Review of information in National Driver Register

The Secretary shall make information received from the National Driver Register under section 30305(b)(7) of title 49 available to an individual for review and written comment before denying, suspending, revoking, or taking any other action relating to a license, certificate of registry, or merchant mariner's document authorized to be issued for that individual under this part, based on that information.

(Added Pub. L. 101–380, title IV, §4105(b)(1), Aug. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 512; amended Pub. L. 115–232, div. C, title XXXV, §3546(e), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 2326.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 substituted "section 30305(b)(7) of title 49" for "section 206(b)(7) of the National Driver Register Act of 1982 (23 U.S.C. 401 note)".

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to incidents occurring after Aug. 18, 1990, see section 1020 of Pub. L. 101–380, set out as a note under section 2701 of Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters.
#### Tobra Knitting Mills, Inc., Appellant, v. Leonard L. Harris et al., Respondents.

In an action for a declaratory judgment, plaintiff appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated, respectively, June 22, *5081960 and July 26, 1960. The first order grants defendants’ motion, under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; the dismissal, however, being “without prejudice to the commencement of another action when the grounds therefor exist ”. The second order grants plaintiff’s motion for reargument and adheres to the original decision. The complaint alleges that defendants, acting as plaintiff’s insurance brokers, obtained a liability insurance policy for plaintiff but failed in their duty to provide adequate and proper liability insurance for plaintiff; that by reason of defendants’ breach of their duty the insurance carrier, after the occurrence of an accident resulting in death and after the commencement of an action against plaintiff to recover damages for such death, disclaimed liability under the policy; and that, if in the death action judgment be recovered against plaintiff and if it be determined in the subsequent controversy between plaintiff and the insurance carrier that the carrier is not liable under the policy, then and in those events plaintiff should have judgment against defendants for the amount of the judgment in the death action not exceeding $50,000, together with the reasonable counsel fees incurred by plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that this action against its brokers is properly brought now, because if it waits until the determination of the death action and the determination of the insurance carrier’s liability under the policy, this action will have been barred by the Statute of Limitations. In granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint herein for legal insufficiency, Special Term held that there is no present justiciable issue presented to the court requiring a determination; that the court will not, by means of a declaratory judgment, render advisory opinions to litigants; that the action is premature; and that the complaint should be dismissed without prejudice to the commencement of another action when the grounds therefor exist. Order of July 26, 1960, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements (cf. *Prashker*v. *United States Guar. Co.,*1 N Y 2d 584; *Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America*v. *Graves,*268 App. Div. 809; *Federal Int. Banking Co.*v. *Touche,*248 N. Y. 517; *Schmidt*v. *Merchants Desp. Transp. Co.,*270 N. Y. 287, 300-301). Appeal from order of June 22, 1960, dismissed, without costs, as academic. Such order was superseded by the later order of July 26, 1960. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. John Brereton, Appellant, against Kenneth Keill, as Director of Willard State Hospital, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. (Appeal from order of Seneca Special Term dismissing a writ of habeas corpus and remanding relator to the custody of the Director of Willard State Hospital.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.