alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Gregory Anderson, M.S., M.P.H., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, Mailstop US8-1, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027, (404) 718-8833,                         *ganderson@cdc.gov*.                    

                        The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Kalwant Smagh,

Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2021-00280 Filed 1-8-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
#### Gertrude Banfield, Appellant, v. Howard Kelly, Respondent.

In a negligence action, the plaintiff appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Queens County: (1) an order dated April 26, 1963, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to diligently prosecute the action; and (2) an order, dated September 23, 1963, which, on reargument, adhered to the original decision and again granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Appeal from order dated April 26, 1963, dismissed, without costs; that order was superseded by the later order. Order, dated September 23, 1963, insofar as it adheres to the prior decision and grants the motion to dismiss, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements to plaintiff, and motion to dismiss denied, without prejudice to an application by plaintiff to transfer the action to the Civil Court of the City of New York, if the plaintiff be so advised. Under all the circumstances here, we believe it was an improvident exercise of discretion to dismiss the action. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, J J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1998 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                         507,899
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  575,110
<ALLOWANCES>                                    45,566
<INVENTORY>                                    215,101
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,586,069
<PP&E>                                         831,545
<DEPRECIATION>                                 533,438
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,054,798
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          885,997
<BONDS>                                        357,568
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       289,282
<OTHER-SE>                                     521,951
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,054,798
<SALES>                                      3,141,877
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,141,877
<CGS>                                        2,633,764
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,632,083
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,257
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (218,239)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (218,239)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 110,321
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (107,918)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        




</TABLE>
EXHIBIT  32

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                            CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                          AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                  SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13(A) AND 15(D)
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Metwood, Inc. ("the
Company")  for  the  three  months  ended  September 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), each of
the  undersigned  Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Chief Financial Officer of the
Company  certifies,  to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant
to  18 U.S.C. 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/  Robert  M.  Callahan
                                           -----------------------
                                           Robert  M.  Callahan
Date:  November  17,  2004                 Chief  Executive  Officer


                                           /s/  Shawn  Callahan
                                           -----------------------
                                           Shawn  Callahan
Date:  November  17,  2004                 Chief  Financial  Officer
No. 746.

#### Henry Krichman *v.*United States.

March 8, 1920.

*Mr. Harrison P. Lindábury*and *Mr. Edward Schoen*for petitioner.

No brief filed for the United States.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted.
### §511k. Penalty for violations

Any person violating any provision of sections 511d and 511i of this title shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 623, §12, 49 Stat. 734.)
#### First Methodist Church of Norwalk *v.*Estate of Ella Palmer

House, C. J., Poiselle, MacDonald, Bogdanski and Longo, Js.

Argued January 9

decision released February 11, 1975

*Peter J. Strassberger,*with whom, on the brief, was *Richard 8. Weinstein,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Robert A. Fuller,*for the appellee (defendant).

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court in Fairfield County which dismissed an appeal from a decree of the Probate Court for the district of Norwalk which extended the time for the presentation of claims against the estate of Ella Palmer, deceased. The Probate Court had limited the time for the presentation of claims against the estate to three months from September *62021, 1972. Bernadette Palmer, a claimant, had retained an attorney to file a claim on her behalf. The attorney mistakenly listed the last day for filing claims as December 26, 1972. He was at home ill during December and, on December 21, was called by his client about filing her claim. He was unable to arrange to file the claim on that date but did file it the following day, one day late, together with a motion for extension of time in which to file a claim. Due to his illness, the hearing on the motion for an extension of time was postponed and held at a later date when the Probate Court extended the time for filing claims and the claim was again filed during that extended period. The First Methodist Church of Norwalk, a residuary legatee, appealed from the decree of the court extending the time for filing claims against the estate.

Section 45-205 of the General Statutes authorizes a Probate Court to require the presentation of claims within three to twelve months from the date of the order and further provides that the court may “for cause shown” limit a further time for the presentation of claims and may “if any creditor, through no default of his own, has failed to present his claim within the time limited, for cause shown upon hearing after public notice, extend the time for such creditor to present his claim not more than thirty days beyond the period which it might have originally limited.”

On appeal to the Superior Court, that court concluded that the Probate Court had not abused the discretion vested in it by §45-205 of the General Statutes and dismissed the appeal. We find no error in that decision and judgment.

There is no error.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-1912

___________

Charles Armstrong, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 *

State of Missouri; Mel Carnahan, *

Governor; St. Louis County, Missouri; *

Buzz Westfall, County Executive; *

St. Louis County Government; City *

of Vinita Park; Virginia Bira, Mayor *

of Vinita Park, Missouri; Daniel B. * Appeal from the United States

Kramer, Vinita Park, Missouri, * District Court for the Eastern

Municipal Court Judge; R. Hartz, * District of Missouri.

Vinita Park, Missouri, City Marshall; *

Richard Aites, Vinita Park, Missouri * (UNPUBLISHED)

Police Officer; Unknown Mudd, *

Vinita Park, Missouri Police Officer; *

Unknown Vinita Park, Missouri, City *

Court; Ku Klux Klan, Overland, *

Missouri; Ku Klux Klan, of the State *

of Missouri, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: December 22, 2000

 Filed: January 5, 2001

___________
1The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

-2-

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit

Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Charles Armstrong appeals the district court’s1 order dismissing without

prejudice his pro se civil rights complaint against numerous defendants. After careful

review of the record, we conclude that Mr. Armstrong’s complaint was frivolous and

failed to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii); Bray v. Alexandria

Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 267-68 (1993); West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,

48 (1988); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, we

affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Ocean Home Enterprises, Inc., Respondent, v. Walter E. Mercer et al., Appellants.

-In an action to recover a balance due under a contract for the construction of a Summer house by the plaintiff for the defendants, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, made July 25, 1962 upon reargument, as adhered to the court’s original decision and as: (1) vacated court orders of April 17, 1962 granting defendants’ motion to enter judgment on their counterclaims, and vacated the judgment for $4,216.75 entered May 17, 1962 on such counterclaims; (2) granted leave to plaintiff to serve *nuna pro tune*an amended reply; (3) vacated the court orders of April 17, 1962, denying the plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the calendar and dismissing the complaint unless plaintiff serves a note of issue for the April 1962 Calender; (4) directed plaintiff to serve a note of issue for the next Trial Term; and (5) directed the defendants, within a stated period, to transcribe the testimony of every officer and employee of the plaintiff previously taken by defendants at their pretrial examinations of such officers and employees, and further directed that defendants’ answer shall be stricken out in the event of their failure to make such transcription. Order modified by striking out the sixth decretal paragraph directing the defendants to transcribe the testimony of plaintiff’s officers and employees, and further directing that defendants’ answer be stricken out if such transcription be not made; and plaintiff’s motion to direct such transcription denied. As so modified, order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, under the circumstances, it was an improper exercise of discretion to direct the transcription of the testimony, particularly in view of defendants’ claim that the recording thereof is no longer in existence, and in view of the plaintiff’s loches for two years in demanding the transcription. Plaintiff has also failed to show that it would be prejudiced because the officers are dead or not available to testify at the trial. ICIeinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 172 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 172

  Expressing support for designation of March 3, 2023, as ``National 
                  Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 27, 2023

 Mr. Morelle submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
             the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing support for designation of March 3, 2023, as ``National 
                  Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Day''.

Whereas triple-negative breast cancer was recognized as a distinct type of 
        cancer in 2006;
Whereas triple-negative breast cancer disproportionately affects young women, 
        Black and Hispanic women, and those with BRCA gene mutations;
Whereas triple-negative breast cancers are estrogen receptor-negative, 
        progesterone receptor-negative, and HER2-negative, making them distinct 
        from other breast cancers;
Whereas there is no targeted therapy for triple-negative breast cancers;
Whereas 10 to 20 percent of all breast cancer diagnoses are designated as 
        triple-negative;
Whereas triple-negative breast cancer can be more aggressive and more likely to 
        spread and recur;
Whereas triple-negative breast cancer accounts for around 25 percent of all 
        deaths from breast cancer in the United States; and
Whereas March 3, 2023, would be an appropriate date to designate as ``National 
        Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Day'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports the 
designation of ``National Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Day'' to create 
awareness of the devastating effect of these cancers on families in the 
United States and the need for strong action to eradicate triple-
negative breast cancer.
                                 <all>
```
#### Herbert L. Brickman *v.*Planning and Zoning Commission of Trumbull

*Burton S. Yaffle,*in support of the petition.

*William J. Lavery,*in opposition.

Submitted September 10

decided October *2,*1974

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County is denied.
EXHIBIT 13.1





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 Avino Silver & Gold Mines Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the twelve months ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”).  I, David Wolfin, Principal Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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.







Date: May 11, 2012
/s/ David WolfinDavid Wolfin, Principal Executive Officer
#### Justin Teutul, Respondent, v. First National Bank in Yonkers, Appellant.

In an action to recover money paid by defendant on forged checks charged to plaintiff’s account, defendant appeals: (1) from an order of the City Court of Yonkers, dated April 23, 1962, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; and (2) from the judgment of said court entered Hay 23, 1962 pursuant to said order. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Appeal from judgment dismissed, without costs. No judgment is contained in the record *(Matter of Teperman*v. *Atcos Baths,*7 AD 2d 854). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

About EDED PERFORMANCE & ACCOUNTABILITY
##### 



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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of R.H. Donnelley
Inc. for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned
officers hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such
officers knowledge:  (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 R.H. Donnelley Corporation as of the
dates and for the periods expressed in the Report. /s/ David C. Swanson
    
    
    
    /s/ Steven M. BlondyDavid C. Swanson
    
    
    
    Steven M. BlondyPresident and Chief Executive Officer
    
    
    
    SVP and Chief Financial OfficerAugust 9, 2004
    
    
    
    August 9, 2004
 The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document. 77
### §4552. Authorization of appropriations for dairy farmer indemnities

There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 90–484, §2, Aug. 13, 1968, 82 Stat. 750.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 450k of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Section was enacted as part of Pub. L. 90–484, and not as part of the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 which comprises this chapter.

#### Prior Provisions

The following Acts authorized indemnity payments for the periods ending as indicated:

June 30, 1968—Pub. L. 90–95, §2, Sept. 28, 1967, 81 Stat. 231.

June 30, 1967—Pub. L. 89–794, title III, §301(c), Nov. 8, 1966, 80 Stat. 1465.

June 30, 1966—Pub. L. 89–253, §24, Oct. 9, 1965, 79 Stat. 977.

June 30, 1965—Pub. L. 89–16, title III, §303, Apr. 30, 1965, 79 Stat. 108.

Jan. 31, 1965—Pub. L. 88–452, title III, §331, Aug. 20, 1964, 78 Stat. 525.
### §5311. Establishment of coordinated program

#### (a) In general

There is established a ten-year coordinated program, to be known as the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Program, to carry out the purposes of this chapter.

#### (b) Implementation responsibility

The Secretaries shall be responsible for the implementation of the coordinated program.

#### (c) Establishment of Board

To assist in implementing the coordinated program, there is established an Interagency Board for Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research, of which an Assistant Secretary in the Department of Agriculture (designated by the Secretary of Agriculture) and an Assistant Secretary in the Department of Health and Human Services (designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services) shall be joint chairpersons. The remaining membership of the Board shall consist of additional representatives of Federal agencies, as determined appropriate by the joint chairpersons of the Board. The Board shall meet no less often than once every three months for the two-year period following October 22, 1990, and when appropriate thereafter.

#### (d) Administrator

To establish a central focus and coordinator for the coordinated program, the Secretaries may appoint an Administrator of Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research. The Administrator shall—

(1) be an individual who is eminent in the field of nutrition monitoring and related areas and be selected on the basis of the established record of expertise and distinguished service of such individual; and

(2) administer the coordinated program with the advice and counsel of the joint chairpersons of the Board, serve as the focal point for the coordinated program, and serve as the Executive Secretary for the National Nutrition Monitoring Advisory Council.

(Pub. L. 101–445, title I, §101, Oct. 22, 1990, 104 Stat. 1035.)
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 CB Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald K. Migita,
President and Chief Executive 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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/  RONALD K. MIGITA
---------------------------------------------
    Ronald K. Migita
    President and Chief Executive Officer

March 12, 2003