alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32





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 Banyan Rail Services Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009 (the “Report”) filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Gary O. Marino,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Bennett Marks, 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 § 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/ Gary O. MarinoGary
      O. MarinoChairman
      and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Bennett MarksBennett
      MarksVice
      President andChief
      Financial OfficerApril
      15, 2010
#### City of New York, Respondent, v. Town of Colchester et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Order entered on February 17, 1961 unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur—Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ. [28 Misc 2d 426.]
### §104902. Services or other accommodations for public

The Secretary may contract for services or other accommodations provided in System units for the public under contract with the Department of the Interior, as may be required in the administration of the Service, at rates approved by the Secretary for the furnishing of those services or accommodations to the Federal Government and without compliance with section 6101 of title 41.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3167.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 104902 | 16 U.S.C. 17b. | May 26, 1930, ch. 324, §3, 46 Stat. 382. |

Section
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Confe Realty Corp., Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Kelvin Jimenez Nunez, Respondent-Tenant, and Genesis Ramos, Respondent-Respondent, and "John Doe," and "Jane Doe," Respondents.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Petitioner-landlord, as limited by its briefs, appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Dakota D. Ramseur, J.), dated August 5, 2019, which granted respondent Genesis Ramos's posttrial motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(b) to set aside the final judgment of possession and warrant of eviction against her in a nonpayment summary proceeding, and ordered a trial on her succession defense.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Dakota D. Ramseur, J.), dated August 5, 2019, affirmed, with $10 costs.</p><p>Petitioner-landlord's challenge to the timeliness of respondent Ramos's CPLR 4404(b) posttrial motion was raised for the first time on appeal and is unpreserved for review (<i>see generally Diarrassouba v Consolidated Edison Co. of NY Inc</i>., 123 AD3d 525 [2014]). In any event the motion was timely brought within 15 days (<i>see</i> CPLR 4405), inasmuch as only 11 days elapsed between the April 8, 2019 decision after trial and respondent's April 19, 2019 motion. We also note that even if there was a minor delay, the court had discretion to consider the motion on the merits (<i>see Pioli v Morgan Guar. Trust Co. of NY</i>, 199 AD2d 144, 148 [1993], <i>lv denied </i>87 NY2d 801 [1995]).</p><p>On the merits, Civil Court providently exercised its discretion in setting aside the final <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>judgment of possession and ordering a new trial with respect to respondent's newly-proffered succession defense. Although CPLR 4404 posttrial relief should not be granted where the new evidence could have been presented at trial, we find no reason on this record to disturb the court's finding that the failure of the then pro se respondent to assert her succession defense deprived her of substantial justice (<i>see generally Carney v Carney</i>, 236 AD2d 574, 575 [1997]), given, inter alia, that respondent did not previously understand or appreciate the facially meritorious nature of that defense. Nor did she have any reason to raise the defense, since tenant was still in possession when respondent answered, and remained in possession until respondent obtained an order of protection against him approximately two months later.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: February 28, 2020<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
### §101523. Procedures applicable to transportation plans and projects

(a) During Formulation of Plan.—The Secretary shall, during the formulation of any transportation plan authorized pursuant to section 101521 of this title—

(1) give public notice of intention to formulate the plan by publication in the Federal Register and in a newspaper or periodical having general circulation in the vicinity of the affected System unit; and

(2) following the notice, hold a public meeting at a location convenient to the affected System unit.

(b) Prior to Implementation of Project.—Prior to the implementation of any project developed pursuant to the transportation plan formulated pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary shall—

(1) establish procedures, including public meetings, to give State and local governments and the public adequate notice and an opportunity to comment on the proposed transportation project; and

(2) when the proposed project would involve an expenditure in excess of $100,000 in any fiscal year, submit a detailed report to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives.

(c) Waiting Period.—When a report on a project is required under subsection (b)(2), the Secretary may proceed with the implementation of the project only after 60 days (not counting days on which the Senate or House of Representatives has adjourned for more than 3 consecutive days) have elapsed following submission of the report.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3133.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 101523 | 16 U.S.C. 2304. | Pub. L. 95–344, title III, §304, Aug. 15, 1978, 92 Stat. 479; Pub. L. 103–437, §6(d)(18), Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4584. |

Section

In subsection (c), the words "When a report on a project is required under subsection (b)(2)" are added for clarity. The words "implementation of the project" are substituted for "implementation of such plan", and the words "submission of the report" are substituted for "submission of the plan", for consistency.
# C_2023226EN.01000901.xml

| 28.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/9

---

Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2023/C 226/08)

Further to the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1) following which no duly substantiated request for a review was lodged, the Commission gives notice that the anti-dumping measure mentioned below will expire.

This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (2).

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Tartaric acid | The People’s Republic of China | Anti-dumping duty | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/921 of 28 June 2018 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tartaric acid originating in the People's Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council
  (OJ L 164, 29.6.2018, p. 14) | 30.6.2023 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry (3)

Tartaric acid

The People’s Republic of China

Anti-dumping duty

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/921 of 28 June 2018 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tartaric acid originating in the People's Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(OJ L 164, 29.6.2018, p. 14)

30.6.2023

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 29.9.2022, p. 3

(2)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(3)  The measure will expire at midnight (00:00) of the day mentioned in this column.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6939

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TIMOTHY L. MASSEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, 

at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cr-00224-MOC-1; 3:16-cv00244-MOC)

Submitted: December 20, 2018 Decided: December 27, 2018

Before DIAZ and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy L. Massey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Timothy L. Massey appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and 

dismissing for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we deny as unnecessary a certificate of appealability (“COA”) and 

affirm. See United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015) (“[W]e need not 

issue a COA before determining whether the district court erred in dismissing [a] 

purported Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive habeas petition.”). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nicholas Dockery, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered January 14, 1976, convicting defendant after jury trial of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law, § 265.03) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law, § 265.02), unanimously modified, on the law, to reverse and dismiss the latter count and vacate the sentence thereon, and otherwise affirmed. On the facts of this case, the two counts are inclusory concurrent counts. Where the verdict is comprised of inclusory concurrent counts, a verdict of guilty on the greater is deemed a dismissal of the lesser count. (CPL 300.40, subd 3, par [b]; *People v Grier,*37 NY2d 847; *People v Diaz,*56 AD2d 557.) We have examined the points raised by appellant and find them without merit. (See Penal Law, § 265.15, subd 4, second sentence.) Concur—Silverman, J. P., Fein, Lane, Markewich and Sullivan, JJ.
#### § 939.762 Criteria for designating areas as unsuitable for surface coal mining operations.

Part 762 of this chapter, *Criteria for Designating Areas Unsuitable for Surface Coal Mining Operations,* shall apply to surface coal mining and reclamation operations.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9544 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9544

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 340 South Loudon Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``United 
    States Representative Elijah E. Cummings Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS POST OFFICE 
              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 340 South Loudon Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, shall be 
known and designated as the ``United States Representative Elijah E. 
Cummings Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``United 
States Representative Elijah E. Cummings Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 4, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 9544

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 340 South Loudon Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``United 
    States Representative Elijah E. Cummings Post Office Building''.
```
#### Frederick J. Martin, Jr., Individually and as a Member of the Board of Supervisors of Westchester County, et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. John E. Flynn, as Mayor of the City of Yonkers, et al., Respondents-Appellants.

In an action to declare illegal and void Local Law No. 22 of the 1962 Local Laws of the City of Yonkers, adopted by the Common Council of the City of Yonkers, the parties cross-appeal as follows from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated April 11, 1963, and from the resettled order of the same court, dated April 29, 1963: (1) Plaintiffs appeal from so much of said orders as denied their motions pursuant to the Rules of Civil Practice: (a) to strike out the defenses contained in defendants’ answer (rule 109); (b) for judgment on the pleadings as to the first, second and fifth causes of action alleged in the complaint (rule 112); and (e) for summary judgment on the third, fourth and fifth causes of action (rule 113). (2) Defendants appeal from so much of said orders as denied their cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the third, fourth and fifth causes of action and for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the complaint (Rules Civ. Prae., rules 112 and 113). Appeals from order of April 11, 1963 dismissed as academic; that order was superseded by the subsequent resettled order. Resettled order, insofar as appealed from by plaintiffs, affirmed, without costs; and, insofar as appealed from by defendants, reversed, without costs; and defendants’ said cross motions granted and complaint dismissed. In our *654opinion, the statutory notice given in the case at bar was a proper notice in contemplation of law (cf. *Bramley*v. *Miller,*270 N. Y. 307; *Salducco*v. *Etkin,*268 N. Y. 606). The inaccurate printing of certain words, if not misleading, does not invalidate the publication (5 MeQuillin, Municipal Corporations [3d ed.], p. 306). Moreover, the notice was properly given pursuant to the requirements of subdivision 5 of section 13 of the City Home Rule Law *(Neils*v. *City of Yonkers,*38 Mise 2d 691). We further conclude that the action of the majority of the members of the council in terminating the hearing in this case was not arbitrary or capricious, and that a reasonable opportunity was afforded for the presentation to and consideration by the council of complete data and arguments for and against the proposed local law (cf. *Miner*V. *City of Yonkers,*19 Mise 2d 321, affd. 9 A D 2d 907, motion for leave to appeal denied, 8 N Y 2d 784). Hence, there are no issues of fact for determination at a trial. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 18, 2014

NO. 03-12-00440-CR

Brian Lee Russell, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 427TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction.

Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
§ 1290.1 References. ( a ) DLAR 5720.1/AR 190-5/OPNAVINST 11200.5B/AFR 125-14/MCO 5110.1B, Motor Vehicle Traffic Supervision.
( b ) DLAR 5710.1, Authority of Military Commanders To Issue Security Orders and Regulations for the Protection of Property or Places Under Their Command.
( c ) Sections 1, 3401 and 3402, title 18, U.S.C.
( d ) Rules of procedures for the Trial of Minor Offenses before United States Magistrates.
( e ) Section 13, title 18, U.S.C., Assimilative Crimes Act.
Exhibit 10.284



                                 PROMISSORY NOTE
                                  (NO INTEREST)

$9,184.00                                                   Glendale, California
   June 29, 2000




     FOR VALUE RECEIVED,  Joe Martin (Payor") promises to pay in lawful money of
the  United  States of  America to  Pollution  Research  and  Control  Corp.,  a
California corporation ("Payee"), or order, at Glendale,  California, the sum of
$9,184.00  Dollars  from the date  hereof on the  unpaid  principal  payable  in
installments  of principal only in the sum of $50.00 Dollars  commencing on July
15,  2000 and  payable  on the same day of each month  thereafter  until paid in
full.

     The unpaid principal may be prepaid without penalty. Each payment hereunder
shall be credited to the principal amount.

     If each  installment  under this note is not paid when due, the undersigned
shall pay all costs of collection thereof, including reasonable attorneys' fees,
whether or not suit or action is commenced to enforce  payment of this note, and
Payee may, at its option, declare the entire amount of the then unpaid principal
immediately  due and payable if such  default is not cured  within 10 days after
Payee provides the undersigned  written notice of such default.  The undersigned
hereby waives presentment, notice of dishonor and protest.

     This note is secured by shares of Payee's  common stock,  no par value (the
"Shares"),  pursuant to a certain Stock Pledge  Agreement,  dated as of June 29,
2000 (the "Pledge Agreement").

     Upon the termination of employment of Payor as an employee of Payee for any
reason,  the unpaid  balance of this note shall be  cancelled,  and the pro rata
portion  of Shares  which then not fully paid for,  shall be  returned  to Payee
pursuant to the terms of the Pledge Agreement.

                                            Payor:



                                            By:  /s/  Joe Martin
                                               --------------------------------
                                                      Joe Martin
### §60505. Coordination with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(a) Joint Working Group.—The Administrator and the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall appoint a Joint Working Group, which shall review and monitor missions of the two agencies to ensure maximum coordination in the design, operation, and transition of missions where appropriate. The Joint Working Group shall also prepare the plans required by subsection (c).

(b) Coordination Report.—Not later than February 15 of each year, the Administrator and the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall jointly transmit a report to the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate on how the Earth science programs of the Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will be coordinated during the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the report is transmitted.

(c) Coordination of Transition Planning and Reporting.—The Administrator, in conjunction with the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and in consultation with other relevant agencies, shall evaluate relevant Administration science missions for their potential operational capabilities and shall prepare transition plans for the existing and future Earth observing systems found to have potential operational capabilities.

(d) Limitation.—The Administrator shall not transfer any Administration Earth science mission or Earth observing system to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration until the plan required under subsection (c) has been approved by the Administrator and the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and until financial resources have been identified to support the transition or transfer in the President's budget request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

(Pub. L. 111–314, §3, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3426.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 60505 | 42 U.S.C. 16656. | Pub. L. 109–155, title III, §306, Dec. 30, 2005, 119 Stat. 2919. |

Section

In subsection (b), the words "beginning with the first fiscal year after the date of enactment of this Act [December 30, 2005]" are omitted as obsolete.

In subsection (b), the words "Committee on Science and Technology" are substituted for "Committee on Science" on authority of Rule X(1)(o) of the Rules of the House of Representatives, adopted by House Resolution No. 6 (110th Congress, January 5, 2007).

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

#### Change of Name

Committee on Science and Technology of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Jan. 5, 2011.
§ 155.4 Policy. It is DoD policy that: ( a ) All proceedings provided for by this part shall be conducted in a fair and impartial manner.
( b ) A clearance decision reflects the basis for an ultimate finding as to whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the applicant.
( c ) Except as otherwise provided for by E.O. 10865, as amended, or this part, a final unfavorable clearance decision shall not be made without first providing the applicant with: ( 1 ) Notice of specific reasons for the proposed action.
( 2 ) An opportunity to respond to the reasons.
( 3 ) Notice of the right to a hearing and the opportunity to cross-examine persons providing information adverse to the applicant.
( 4 ) Opportunity to present evidence on his or her own behalf, or to be represented by counsel or personal representative.
( 5 ) Written notice of final clearance decisions.
( 6 ) Notice of appeal procedures.
( d ) Actions pursuant to this part shall cease upon termination of the applicant's need for access to classified information except in those cases in which: ( 1 ) A hearing has commenced;
( 2 ) A clearance decision has been issued; or
( 3 ) The applicant's security clearance was suspended and the applicant provided a written request that the case continue.
[57 FR 5383, Feb. 14, 1992, as amended at 59 FR 48565, Sept. 22, 1994]
### **CHAPTER 3001—POLICY**

Sec.
300101.
Policy.