alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §306113. Anticipatory demolition

Each Federal agency shall ensure that the agency will not grant a loan, loan guarantee, permit, license, or other assistance to an applicant that, with intent to avoid the requirements of section 306108 of this title, has intentionally significantly adversely affected a historic property to which the grant would relate, or having legal power to prevent it, has allowed the significant adverse effect to occur, unless the agency, after consultation with the Council, determines that circumstances justify granting the assistance despite the adverse effect created or permitted by the applicant.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3227.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 306113 | 16 U.S.C. 470h–2(k). | Pub. L. 89–665, title I, §110(k), as added Pub. L. 102–575, title XL, §4012(3), Oct. 30, 1992, 106 Stat. 4760. |

Section
Exhibit
32.2








The
following certification accompanies Dynamics Research Corporation’s Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008 and is not
filed as provided in Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K of the Securities and
Exchange Commission.





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 on Form 10-Q of Dynamics Research
Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”), for the quarter ended
September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to his
knowledge:





(1) the
Report of the Company filed today pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; and





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





Date:  November
      10, 2008
              /s/
      David KeleherSenior
      Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
  Treasurer
§ 1660.9 Procedures—requirements and determinations. ( a ) A litigation request or demand must describe, in writing and with specificity, the nature of the official information or witness testimony sought, its relevance to the litigation, and other pertinent details addressing the factors in § 1660.8.
( b ) A litigation request or demand must be submitted at least 30 days before the desired date to the Selective Service System, General Counsel, 1501 Wilson Blvd., Suite 800, Arlington, Virginia 22209.
( c ) Personnel and former personnel (*e.g.,* retired employees and Reserve Service Members, past volunteers) who receive a litigation request or demand must notify the SSS GC or their SSS legal advisor immediately.
( d ) If another Federal agency originated the responsive information or otherwise has the primary equity with respect to that information, the SSS GC will: ( 1 ) Transfer the litigation request or demand (or the appropriate portions) to such other agency for action.
( 2 ) Inform the requesting party or issuing court.
( e ) If the litigation request or demand requires a response before a determination can be made, the SSS GC or other SSS legal advisor will inform the requesting party or the issuing court (through the Department of Justice) that the request or demand is still under consideration. The SSS GC or other SSS legal advisor also may seek a stay from the court in question until a final determination is made.
( f ) Upon making a final determination pursuant to § 1660.7(a), the SSS GC or other SSS legal advisor will inform the requesting party or issuing court.
( g ) If the SSS GC or other SSS legal advisor approves the release of official information or the presentation of witness testimony, personnel will limit the disclosure to those matters approved by the SSS GC or other SSS legal advisor. Personnel may not release, produce, comment on, or testify about any official information without the prior written approval of the SSS GC or other SSS legal advisor.
( h ) If a court orders a disclosure that the SSS GC or other SSS legal advisor previously disapproved or has yet to approve, personnel must respectfully decline to comply with the court's order unless the SSS GC or other SSS legal advisor directs otherwise.
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 Quarterly Report of Dionics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned certifies, 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 the undersigneds knowledge, 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.





|Dated:  October 2, 2008 | By:   /s/ Bernard Kravitz            
|----------------------- | -------------------------------------
|                        | Bernard Kravitz,                     
|                        | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                        | (Principal Executive Officer)        
|                        |                                      
|                        |                                      
|Dated:  October 2, 2008 | By:    /s/ Bernard Kravitz           
|                        | Bernard Kravitz,                     
|                        | Principal Financial Officer          





























1
### §465. Joint Interagency Task Force

#### (a) Establishment

The Secretary may establish and operate a permanent Joint Interagency Homeland Security Task Force composed of representatives from military and civilian agencies of the United States Government for the purposes of anticipating terrorist threats against the United States and taking appropriate actions to prevent harm to the United States.

#### (b) Structure

It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary should model the Joint Interagency Homeland Security Task Force on the approach taken by the Joint Interagency Task Forces for drug interdiction at Key West, Florida and Alameda, California, to the maximum extent feasible and appropriate.

(Pub. L. 107–296, title VIII, §885, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2247.)
#### § 339.14 Use of guidance documents.

Guidance documents cannot create binding requirements that do not already exist by statute or regulation. Accordingly, noncompliance with guidance documents cannot be used as a basis for proving violations of applicable law. Guidance documents can do no more, with respect to prohibition of conduct, than articulate the Department's understanding of how a statute or regulation applies to particular circumstances.
#### Rosemary Cota, Appellant, v Madison Central School District et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Madison County, entered March 8,1977, affirmed, without costs, on the opinion of Zeller, J., at Special Term. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Staley, Jr. and Larkin, JJ., concur; Mikoll, J., dissents and votes to reverse in the following memorandum. Mikoll, J. (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. *Phillips v Village of Waterford*(48 AD2d 745) had its genesis in *Joiner v City of New York*(26 AD2d 840) which gave rise to the rule that subdivision 2 of section 50-i of the General Municipal Law precludes application of the tolling provisions of CPLR 204. However, *Joiner*meant only to preclude application of CPLR 204 to the statutory stays contained in the General Municipal Law *(Serravillo v New York City Tr. Auth.,*51 AD2d 1027, affd 42 NY2d 918). Courts have held other tolling provisions of CPLR article 2 applicable to section 50-i, such as the toll for infants and incompetents pursuant to CPLR 208, the six-month extension granted by CPLR 205 and the 60-day extension for delivery to the Sheriff pursuant to CPLR 203. There is no reason to restrict application of CPLR 204 to the circumstances of this case. The restrictions against bringing a lawsuit contained in the "no-fault” provisions of the Insurance Law toll the running of the Statute of Limitations contained in section 50-i of the General Municipal Law until a plaintiff reaches the $500 threshold required by the Insurance Law. The plaintiff’s lawsuit was timely commenced. The judgment should be reversed. [89 Misc 2d 646.]
### §9005. Preemption

(a) Contractual Provisions.—The terms of any contract under this chapter which relate to the nature, provision, or extent of coverage or benefits (including payments with respect to benefits) shall supersede and preempt any State or local law, or any regulation issued thereunder, which relates to long-term care insurance or contracts.

(b) Premiums.—

(1) In general.—No tax, fee, or other monetary payment may be imposed or collected, directly or indirectly, by any State, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or by any political subdivision or other governmental authority thereof, on, or with respect to, any premium paid for an insurance policy under this chapter.

(2) Rule of construction.—Paragraph (1) shall not be construed to exempt any company or other entity issuing a policy of insurance under this chapter from the imposition, payment, or collection of a tax, fee, or other monetary payment on the net income or profit accruing to or realized by such entity from business conducted under this chapter, if that tax, fee, or payment is applicable to a broad range of business activity.

(Added Pub. L. 106–265, title I, §1002(a), Sept. 19, 2000, 114 Stat. 768; amended Pub. L. 107–104, §2, Dec. 27, 2001, 115 Stat. 1001.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2001—Pub. L. 107–104 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted heading, and added subsec. (b).

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

#### Effective Date of 2001 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 107–104 effective as if included in the enactment of section 1002 of Pub. L. 106–265, see section 3 of Pub. L. 107–104, set out as a note under section 9001 of this title.
### Part A—Information and Analysis; Access to Information

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 115–278, §2(g)(2)(B), Nov. 16, 2018, 132 Stat. 4177, struck out "and Infrastructure Protection" after "Information and Analysis" in part heading.

Pub. L. 110–53, title V, §531(b)(3), Aug. 3, 2007, 121 Stat. 334, substituted "Information and" for "Directorate for Information" in part heading.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 130 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 130

    Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Natural 
           Resources in the One Hundred Eighteenth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 14, 2023

 Mr. Westerman (for himself and Mr. Grijalva) submitted the following 
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Natural 
           Resources in the One Hundred Eighteenth Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Natural Resources (hereafter 
in this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the 
expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the 
applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for committee 
salaries and expenses, not more than $17,602,284 for the One Hundred 
Eighteenth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $8,801,142 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2023, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2024; and
            (2) not more than $8,801,142 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2024, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2025.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO andCFO**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350,**

**AsAdopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Real Estate Associates Limited II (the"Partnership"), for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven D.Cordes, as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership, andStephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the Chief Financial Officer of thePartnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of his knowledge:

 

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 

This certification isfurnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
As
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2004

# FORM 6-K

# SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION

# Washington, D.C. 20549

# Report of Foreign
Private Issuer
Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
For the month of January 2004

# DYNEA INTERNATIONAL OY

# 13 Snellmaninkatu,
Helsinki, Finland

| | Indicate by check mark whether the
registrant files or will file annual reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 

| | Form 20-F [  ] | Form 40-F [  ]
| | -------------- | --------------

| | Indicate by check mark whether the registrant
by furnishing the information contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the
information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 

| | Yes [  ] | No |X|
| | -------- | ------

| | If Yes is marked, indicate
below the file number assigned to the registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b):        N/A | 
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 



---

# SIGNATURES

Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

| | DYNEA INTERNATIONAL OY                                                                                                               
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | By: /s/ Filip Frankenhaeuser
      Name: Filip Frankenhaeuser
      Title: Executive Vice President and       Chief Financial Officer

Date: January 27, 2004

---

Exhibit 1.1 Appointments in Dynea
Group dated January 27, 2004
# C_2008116EN.01003002.xml

| 9.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/30

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 31 January 2008 — Di Bucci v Commission

(Case F-98/05) (1)

1

(Officials - Staff cases - Promotion - 2004 promotion exercise - Allocation of priority points - Application ratione temporis of provisions of the new staff regulations)

(2008/C 116/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vittorio Di Bucci (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. van der Woude and V. Landes, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and V. Joris, agents, and D. Slater, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

First, annulment of the decisions awarding promotion points to the applicant in respect of the 2004 promotion exercise and, second, annulment of the merit list of Grade A*11 officials promoted to Grade A*12 in the 2004 promotion exercise

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision fixing the total of Mr Di Bucci's promotion points in the 2004 promotion exercise and the decision refusing him promotion in that exercise. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision fixing the total of Mr Di Bucci's promotion points in the 2004 promotion exercise and the decision refusing him promotion in that exercise.

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action.

| 3. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006, p. 24 (Case originally registered at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under T-381/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15 December 2005).

1

---
FILED

May 20, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTION

ROBERT D. DAVIS and ) BRADLEY COUNTY

CINDI DAVIS ) 03A01-9707-CV-00247

 )

Plaintiffs-Appellants )

)

)

v. ) HON. JOHN B. HAGLER,

) JUDGE

 )

GARY B. ERWIN, EDGAR H. PIERCE, ) 

LLOYE HAMILTON and BOYD )

WILLIAMS, Both Individually )

and d/b/a COLDWELL BANKER )

HAMILTON and WILLIAMS REALTY )

)

Defendants-Appellees ) AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

TERRI L. LACEY OF CLEVELAND FOR APPELLANTS

JOSEPH R. WHITE and CARL E. SHILES, JR., OF CHATTANOOGA FOR

APPELLEES

 O P I N I O N

 Goddard, P.J. 

Robert D. Davis and Cindi Davis appeal a summary

judgment granted against them in favor of Edgar H. Pierce, Lloye

Hamilton and Boyd Williams, both individually and d/b/a under a

partnership named Coldwell Banker Hamilton and Williams Realty. 

Although the judgment does not dispose of the case as
2

to Gary B. Erwin, the Trial Judge made the summary judgment a

final one pursuant to Rule 54 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil

Procedure. 

The Plaintiffs’ suit was predicated upon a dog bite

suffered by Mr. Davis, resulting in injuries to him and loss of

consortium to his wife.

Edgar H. Pierce owned a house and lot which was managed

by Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Williams, and their Real Estate Company. It

was leased to Gary B. Erwin, the owner and trainer of guard dogs. 

The guard dog in question was kept on the premises, although the

dog bite occurred on nearby property. Under the undisputed

proof, Mr. Pierce did not know Mr. Erwin was keeping dogs on the

property, and although Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Williams knew that he

was they did not know that he was training guard dogs, nor the

propensity of the dog which bit Mr. Davis.

Our review of the record persuades us that, under the

authority of McKenna v. Jackson , an unreported opinion of this

Court filed in Nashville on March 29, 1996, this is an

appropriate case for affirmance under Rule 10(a) of this Court.

The judgment of the Trial Court is accordingly affirmed

and the cause remanded for collection of costs below. Costs of

appeal are adjudged against the Plaintiffs and their surety.
3

_______________________________

Houston M. Goddard, P.J. 

CONCUR:

________________________________

Herschel P. Franks, J.

________________________________

Don T. McMurray, J.
Exhibit 10.5



EXCERPT FROM THE

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE

BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION

HELD ON MAY 12, 2005



Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously



RESOLVED, That the Directors Compensation and Benefits Programs be, and they hereby are, revised to allow for the increase in payment of the
Board Retainer (stock) and Nuclear Oversight Committee attendance fees as set forth below:



|                                        |  |                                                                                                                                                                                              
|--------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Board Retainer (stock)                  |  |       $65,000 value (equity vehicle may vary)                                                                                                                                               
|                                        | 
|Nuclear Oversight Committee Meeting Fee |  |       $3,000 for in-person meetings held in conjunction with Board meetings, including bifurcated
meetings (e.g., meeting on day 1, with second meeting on day 2, both around Board meeting)



FURTHER
RESOLVED, That all of the above-stated revisions are effective retroactive to May 1, 2005, except for the stock retainer, for which an award of 540 phantom stock units will be granted on May 12, 2005, (based on the May 11, 2005, closing price),
to make up for the difference in the revised annual value and the value of the award made in February, 2005.