alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §4532. Establishment of National Dairy Research Endowment Institute

The Secretary of Agriculture may establish in the Department of Agriculture a National Dairy Research Endowment Institute whose function shall be to aid the dairy industry through the implementation of the dairy products research order, which its board of trustees shall administer, and the use of monies made available to its board of trustees from the Dairy Research Trust Fund to implement the order. In implementing the order, the Institute shall provide a permanent system for funding scientific research activities designed to facilitate the expansion of markets for milk and dairy products marketed in the United States. The Institute shall be headed by a board of trustees composed of the members of the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board. The board may appoint from among its members an executive committee whose membership shall reflect equally each of the different regions in the United States in which milk is produced. The executive committee shall have such duties and powers as are delegated to it by the board. The members of the board shall serve without compensation. While away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the board, members of the board shall be allowed reasonable travel expenses, including a per diem allowance in lieu of subsistence, as recommended by the board and approved by the Secretary, except that there shall be no duplication of payment for such expenses.

(Pub. L. 98–180, title I, §131, as added Pub. L. 99–198, title I, §121, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1368.)
#### Augustine Feliz v. American Electric and Motor Company.

Motion for leave to dispense with printing granted insofar as to permit the appeal to he heard on the original record, without printing the same, and upon typewritten or mimeographed appellant’s points, upon condition that the appellant serves one copy of the typewritten or mimeographed appellant’s points on the attorney for respondent and flies 6 typewritten or 19 mimeographed copies of appellant’s points together with the original record with this court on or before May 8, 1962, with notice of argument for the June 1962 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Respondent’s points are to be served and filed on or before May 23, 1962. Concur — Valente, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

November 20, 2012

h1113

Order 

November 20, 2012

145712

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145712

COA: 308312

Oakland CC: 2010-232720-FC

GREGORY DELMARK GOODEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 20, 2012 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### Frank J. Gullo, Petitioner, v New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of respondent New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, dated December 20, 1977, which, after a hearing, revoked the license and driving privileges of the petitioner. Determination confirmed, *874with costs, and proceeding dismissed on the merits. There was substantial evidence in the record to support the determination. We note that the documents which were a part of the record were authenticated by a duly designated officer of the Department of Motor Vehicles who had custody of them and, as such, were properly used to support the determination reached. Shapiro, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O'Connor, JJ., concur.
#### 1328.102-2 Waiver authority.

The designee authorized to approve bond waivers is set forth in CAM 1328.102.

[80 FR 27267, May 13, 2015]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

WESTERN DIVISION

)

Solutions From Science Inc., )

)

Plaintiff ) Case No: 3:12 cv 50023

)

v. )

) Judge: Philip G. Reinhard 

Thomas Fosler et al., )

)

Defendants )

)

ORDER

On 7/10/2014, Magistrate Judge Johnston entered a report and recommendation [98] that the 

court grant plaintiff’s motion [95] in part, and enter judgment against defendants Fosler and 

Chambers, jointly and severally, in the amount of $15,000, presently past due under paragraph 5 

of the Consent Decree [93] entered in this case. No timely objection has been filed. The court 

has reviewed the record and accepts the report and recommendation. Plaintiff’s motion [95] is 

granted in part. Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants, Fosler and 

Chambers, jointly and severally, in the sum of $15,000.

Date: 7/29/2014 

Philip G. Reinhard, U.S. District Judge
J.

J. 45 (1995); 

### Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990). Accordingly, we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

cc: Hon. Gary Fairman, District Judge Ronald Davis Attorney General/Carson City White Pine County District Attorney White Pine County Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) I947A 2
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

Following is a list of the Company's subsidiaries:

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                          Organized                 Percent of
                                                          Under                     Voting Securities
Name                                                      the Laws of               Owned by Registrant
----                                                      -----------               -------------------
<S>                                                       <C>                       <C>
1240 Campbell Corp. (formerly Intelect
    Network Technologies Company)                         Nevada                    100%
Intelect Communications Systems Ltd.                      Bermuda                   100%
Intelect Visual Communications Corp.                      Delaware                  100%
DNA Enterprises, Inc.                                     Texas                     100%
TeraForce Ventures, Inc.                                  Delaware                  100%
Centauri Netsystems Corporation                           Delaware                  100%
Aegean Networks, Incorporated                             Delaware                  100%
DNA Computing Solutions, Inc.                             Delaware                  100%
Intelect Technologies, Inc.                               Delaware                   33%
</Table>
EXHIBIT 1

Case: 1:12-cv-00190 Document #: 8-1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:22
Case: 1:12-cv-00190 Document #: 8-1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:23
Case: 1:12-cv-00190 Document #: 8-1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:24
Case: 1:12-cv-00190 Document #: 8-1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:25
Case: 1:12-cv-00190 Document #: 8-1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:26
Case: 1:12-cv-00190 Document #: 8-1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:27
Case: 1:12-cv-00190 Document #: 8-1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:28
Case: 1:12-cv-00190 Document #: 8-1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:29
Case: 1:12-cv-00190 Document #: 8-1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:30
Case: 1:12-cv-00190 Document #: 8-1 Filed: 02/08/12 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:31
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY

BRIEFING DOCUMENT

Rule Title: 45CSR14 - “Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major

Stationary Sources of Air Pollution for the Prevention of Significant

Deterioration”

A. AUTHORITY: W.Va. Code §22-5-4

B. SUMMARY OF RULE:

This rule establishes a state construction permit program consistent with the federal

Clean Air Act’s Title I program and implementing regulations at 40 CFR §51.166,

“Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality.” 45CSR14 is part of the State

Implementation Plan and sets forth the criteria and procedures for major stationary sources

to obtain a permit to construct, operate and/or modify a major stationary source.

C. STATEMENT OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH REQUIRE RULE:

As required by 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart I - “Review of New Sources and

Modifications,” this rule adopts criteria and procedures for the prevention of significant

deterioration of air qualitythat are consistent with the governing federal regulation at 40 CFR

§51.166. Promulgation of this rule by the Legislature is necessary for the State to fulfill its

responsibilities under 40 CFR Part 51 and the CAA, as amended.

Revisions to the rule incorporate changes to the federal counterpart, Prevention of

Significant Deterioration for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers - Increments,

Significant Impact Levels and Significant Monitoring Concentration. The rule title has been

slightlyrevised for clarity. There is a revised Scope section which provides additional citings

to the federal counterpart, pertinent sections of the Clean Air Act, and states that

preconstruction permits must contain emissions limitations to prevent significant

deterioration of air quality. The rule includes clarified language regarding EPA’s stay of the

Fugitive Emissions Rule, which stays the requirement that fugitive emissions be included in

determining whether a physical or operational change resulted in a major modification. 

There are also minor revisions that ensure consistency with federal counterpart language,

while other minor revisions are stylistic in nature. The DAQ will submit final rule 45CSR14

as a revision to the State Implementation Plan.
Briefing Document

45CSR14

Page 2

D. FEDERAL COUNTERPART REGULATIONS - INCORPORATION BY

REFERENCE/DETERMINATION OF STRINGENCY:

A federal counterpart to this proposed rule exists. Because proposed revisions make

the rule conform to the federal counterpart rule, no determination of stringency is required.

E. CONSTITUTIONAL TAKINGS DETERMINATION:

In accordance with W.Va. Code §§22-1A-1 and 3(c), the Secretary has determined

that this rule will not result in taking of private property within the meaning of the

Constitutions of West Virginia and the United States of America.

F. CONSULTATION WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

ADVISORY COUNCIL:

At its June 2, 2011 meeting, the Environmental Protection Advisory Council

reviewed and discussed this rule. (See attached minutes for Council’s discussion).
Exhibit 32(a)








CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


FOR PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION'S 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2009





In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation ("PPL Electric") for the year ended December 31, 2009, as amended by Amendment No.1 thereto filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"), I, the principal executive officer of PPL Electric, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that:





·
The Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and·
The information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PPL Electric.











Date:  April 27, 2010
/s/ David G. DeCampliDavid G. DeCampli

President

PPL Electric Utilities Corporation





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to PPL Electric and will be retained by PPL Electric and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32(b)

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
FOR PPL CORPORATION'S 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of PPL Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"), I, the principal financial officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that:

| |  | The Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                   
| | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |   |                                                                                                                                                             
| |  | The information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|Date:  March 1, 2004 | /s/ John R. BiggarJohn R. Biggar
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
PPL Corporation
|-------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002
 I, Geoffrey P. Jurick, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Emerson Radio
Corp.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as
of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over




---



##### 



financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee
of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting. Date: November 15, 2004 /s/ Geoffrey P. Jurick_Chairman of the Board,
Chief Executive Officer and
President
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 has been
provided to Emerson Radio Corp. and will be retained by Emerson Radio Corp. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Bubble Gum Productions, LLC

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−00595

Honorable Joan H. Lefkow

Does 1−37

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, September 18, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Joan H. Lefkow: Status hearing reset for

9/20/2012 at 08:30 AM.Mailed and telephoned notice(mad, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-00595 Document #: 25 Filed: 09/18/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:142
### §§1736m, 1736n. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–127, title II, §§226, 266, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 962, 974

Section 1736m, Pub. L. 97–98, title XII, §1207, Dec. 22, 1981, 95 Stat. 1278; Pub. L. 99–198, title XI, §1126(c), Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1482, related to expansion of international markets for United States agricultural commodities and products.

Section 1736n, Pub. L. 97–98, title XII, §1208, Dec. 22, 1981, 95 Stat. 1280; Pub. L. 101–624, title XV, §1515(a), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3663, directed Secretary of Agriculture to continue investigating potential for increased usage of protein byproducts derived from alcohol fuel production and report results to Congress.
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCPW-14-0000480 

13-OCT-2014 

09:49 AM 

SCPW-14-0000480
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
 

JOE CROFFORD, Petitioner,
 

vs.
 

THE HONORABLE SHERRI ANN L. IHA, District Family


Court Judge, Family Court of the First Circuit, Respondent Judge, 


and
 

KRISTI ADACHI, Respondent.
 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
 

(FC-D NO. 13-1-7625)
 

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
 

We have considered Petitioner Joe Crofford’s petition
 

for a writ of prohibition, filed on February 25, 2014, the
 

supplement to the petition, the response filed by Respondent
 

Kristi Adachi, the respective supporting documents, and the
 

record. Under the circumstances of this case, the family court’s
 

issuance of the February 12, 2014 “Order Directing Seizure of Any
 

and All Computers and Data Storage Devices in Plaintiff’s
 

Possession or Control” ex parte and outside any formal discovery
 
 

request was a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, and,
 

accordingly, a writ of prohibition is warranted. See Honolulu
 

Adv., Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241, 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a
 

writ of prohibition “is an extraordinary remedy . . . to restrain
 

a judge of an inferior court from acting beyond or in excess of
 

his jurisdiction”). Therefore, 


IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is granted. 


Respondent is directed to promptly deliver to Petitioner, through
 

respective counsel, the computer and data storage devices removed
 

from Petitioner’s possession and specifically identified on pages
 

2-3 of Exhibit “3” attached to the petition. The family court
 

may take appropriate steps to preserve and protect the property
 

and information. This order shall not be construed as
 

determining the rightful ownership of the property in question. 


DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, October 13, 2014. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson 

2
#### 1209.406 Debarment.
#### 1252.237-70 Qualifications of Contractor Employees.

As prescribed in 1237.110-70(a), insert the following clause:

# Qualifications of Contractor Employees (NOV 2022)

(a) *Definition. Sensitive information,* as used in this clause, means any information that is proprietary data or, if subject to unauthorized access, modification, loss, or misuse, could adversely affect the national interest, the conduct of Federal programs, or the privacy of individuals specified in The Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, but has not been specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order or an Act of Congress to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy.

(b) Work under this contract may involve access to DOT facilities or sensitive information or resources (*e.g.,* information technology including computer systems). To protect sensitive information, which shall not be disclosed by the contractor unless authorized in writing by the Contracting Officer, the Contractor shall provide training to any contractor employees authorized to access sensitive information, and upon request of the Government, provide information to assist the Government in determining an individual's suitability to have authorization.

(c) The Contracting Officer may require dismissal from work under this contract of those employees deemed incompetent, careless, insubordinate, unsuitable, or otherwise objectionable, or whose continued employment is deemed contrary to the public interest or inconsistent with the best interest of national security.

(d) Contractor employees working on this contract must complete such forms as may be necessary for security or other reasons, including the conduct of background investigations to determine suitability. Completed forms shall be submitted as directed by the Contracting Officer. Upon the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) or Program Manager's (PM) request, the Contractor's employees shall be fingerprinted or subject to other investigations as required.

(e) The Contractor shall ensure that contractor employees working on this contract are citizens of the United States of America or non-citizens who have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence or employment (indicated by immigration status) as evidenced by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) documentation.

(f) Subcontract flow-down requirement. The Contractor shall include this clause, including this paragraph (f), in subcontracts whenever this clause is included in the prime contractor's contract.

(End of clause)