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

[110th Congress Public Law 266]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ266.110]

[[Page 122 STAT. 2484]]

Public Law 110-266
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
    To designate the Port Angeles Federal Building in Port Angeles, 
            Washington, as the ``Richard B. Anderson Federal 
           Building''. <<NOTE: July 15, 2008 -  [H.R. 4140]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. RICHARD B. ANDERSON FEDERAL BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building located at 138 West First 
Street, Port Angeles, Washington, shall be known and designated as the 
``Richard B. Anderson Federal Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Richard B. Anderson Federal Building''.

    Approved July 15, 2008.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4140:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 110-515 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008):
            Jan. 28, considered and passed House.
            June 24, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### Morris Price, Appellant, v. Harold H. Booth et al., Defendants, and Johanna Martin, Respondent.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 23, 1963, which granted the motion of the defendant Martin for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and which dismissed the complaint and directed cancellation of the *lis pendens.*It appears without dispute that, during the interim between the service of the notice of appeal herein on or about October 26, 1963 and the submission of the appeal to this court for decision on April 27, 1964, the plaintiff-appellant died. In the absence of the substitution of his executor or administrator as the proper party plaintiff-appellant, this court may not proceed to a determination of the appeal on the merits (GPLR 1015, 1021; *Bronheim*v. *Kelleher,*258 App. Div. 972). Under the circumstances, the appeal will be held in abeyance for a period of 90 days after entry of the order hereon; and if, during this period, an executor or administrator for the plaintiff-appellant shall not have been appointed' and substituted as the proper party in this action, the appeal will be dismissed (CPLR 1021). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
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:

                        Jaya Raman Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, Mailstop F80, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone: (770) 488-6511,                         *JRaman@cdc.gov.*      ( print page 3158)    

                        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. 2021-00572 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
### §§801 to 833. Repealed. Feb. 10, 1936, ch. 42, 49 Stat. 1106

Sections, act Aug. 24, 1935, ch. 641, §§201–233, 49 Stat. 782–793, related to potato control.

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

#### Collection of Unpaid Taxes

Act Mar. 2, 1936, ch. 112, 49 Stat. 1155, amending act Feb. 10, 1936, ch. 42, 49 Stat. 1106, provided that no tax, civil penalty, or interest which accrued under any provision of law repealed by said act Feb. 10, 1936, and which was uncollected on date of enactment of said act Feb. 10, 1936, was to be collected; and all liens for taxes, civil penalties, or interest arising out of taxes under such provisions of law were canceled and released.

#### Appropriations for Refunds and Payments of Processing and Related Taxes and Limitations Thereon

Acts June 25, 1938, ch. 681, 52 Stat. 1150; May 6, 1939, ch. 115, §1, 53 Stat. 661, 662; Feb. 12, 1940, ch. 28, §1, 54 Stat. 36; Mar. 25, 1940, ch. 71, title I, 54 Stat. 61; May 31, 1941, ch. 156, title I, §1, 55 Stat. 218; Mar. 10, 1942, ch. 178, title I, §1, 56 Stat. 156; June 30, 1943, ch. 179, title I, 57 Stat. 257; Apr. 22, 1944, ch. 175, title I, §1, 58 Stat. 201; Apr. 24, 1945, ch. 92, title I, 59 Stat. 62; July 20, 1946, ch. 588, title I, 60 Stat. 574.
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 FieldPoint Petroleum Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ray D. Reaves, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                              
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                    
| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Ray ReavesRay Reaves
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
March 31, 2006
### §2217. Oaths, affirmations, and affidavits taken by officers, agents, or employees of Department; use and effect

Such officers, agents, or employees of the Department of Agriculture of the United States as are designated by the Secretary of Agriculture for the purpose are authorized and empowered to administer to or take from any person an oath, affirmation, or affidavit whenever such oath, affirmation, or affidavit is for use in any prosecution or proceeding under or in the enforcement of any law committed to or which may be committed to the Secretary of Agriculture or the Department of Agriculture or any bureau or subdivision thereof for administration. Any such oath, affirmation, or affidavit administered or taken by or before such officer, agent, or employee when certified under his hand and authenticated by the seal of the Department of Agriculture may be offered or used in any court of the United States and shall have like force and effect as if administered or taken before a clerk of such court without further proof of the identity or authority of such officer, agent, or employee.

(Jan. 31, 1925, ch. 124, §1, 43 Stat. 803.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 521 of Title 5 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, by Pub. L. 89–554, §1, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 378.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Department of the Interior Personnel

Provisions of this section were made applicable to such officers, agents, or employees of Department of the Interior performing functions of former Bureau of Biological Survey as are designated by Secretary of the Interior for purposes named herein by 1939 Reorg. Plan No. II, §4(g), eff. July 1, 1939, 4 F.R. 2731, 53 Stat. 1433, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees. See also sections 401 to 404 of said plan for provisions relating to transfer of functions, records, property, personnel, and funds. Bureau of Biological Survey was subsequently consolidated with Bureau of Fisheries into Fish and Wildlife Service in Department of the Interior by 1940 Reorg. Plan No. III, §3, eff. June 30, 1940, 5 F.R. 2107, 54 Stat. 1232, also set out in the Appendix to Title 5.
#### 1028.311 Solicitation provision and contract clause on liability insurance under cost reimbursement contracts.
M. P. Nos. 75-72, 75-78.

#### State of Rhode Island *v.*Edward F. Choiniere. Linda Lemoine *et al. v.*Paul Martineau *et al.*

*Joseph M. Hall,*for Rhode Island Bar Association, Amicus Curiae.

Petition of the Rhode Island Bar Association to file a brief as Amicus Curiae is granted. Said brief is to be filed on or before May 12, 1975. Further, this matter has been assigned for oral argument to May 20, 1975.
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

The undersigned, Donald C. Wood, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Federal Realty Investment Trust (the Company), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the Report). The undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|              |  |                                                                             
|------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|June 25, 2009 |  | /s/ Donald C. Wood                                                          
|              |  | Donald C. Wood,                                                             
|              |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Trustee (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Rubin Griefer, Appellant, v. Marvin Newman et al., Respondents.

In an action, in which the complaint alleges three separate causes of action: (1) to recover damages for breach of contract; (2) to recover damages for fraud; and (3) to declare that a certain restrictive covenant is null and void, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 14, 1963, which granted the individual and corporate defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint for patent insufficiency, with leave to replead. Order reversed, ¡with $10 costs and disbursements, and motions to dismiss the complaint denied. The time of the defendants to answer the complaint is extended until 30 days after entry of the order hereon. In our opinion, the first cause of action sufficiently pleads a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract, and the second cause of action sufficiently pleads a cause of action to recover damages for fraud. Since the motions to dismiss for insufficiency were addressed to the -complaint as a whole and not ¡to each cause of action therein, the motions must be denied without considering the legal sufficiency of the third cause of action *(Stoehrer*v. *Sattler,*18 A D 2d 683). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          32,268
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,499,456
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,047,384
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,078,731
<PP&E>                                       1,977,256
<DEPRECIATION>                               (995,647)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,908,458
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,811,216
<BONDS>                                        335,172
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,078
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,414,288
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,908,458
<SALES>                                      5,367,190
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,367,190
<CGS>                                        3,703,552
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,703,552
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              75,941
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                330,688
<INCOME-TAX>                                    51,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            279,688
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   279,688
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                           [COMERICA BANK LETTERHEAD]

October 18, 2000



Mr. W. T. ZurSchmiede, Jr.
Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Federal Screw Works
20229 Nine Mile Road
St. Clair Shores, MI 48080-1775

Dear Mr. ZurSchmiede,

Per your request dated September 11, 2000 and pursuant to Section 2.13 of the
Revolving Credit and Term Loan Agreement between Federal Screw Works and
Comerica Bank, the Bank has approved the one year extension for the Revolving
Credit Facility and Term Loan option.  The new maturity dates for the
facilities are October 31, 2003 and October 31, 2005, respectively.
Additionally, Section 8.12 of the agreement has been amended to increase the
per annum capital expenditures limit to $16,000,000.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Best Regards,


/s/ Robert M. Ramirez
Robert M. Ramirez

cc: Wade Plaskey
Exhibit 18(a)

| | PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP
Two Commerce Square, Suite 1700
2001 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA  19103-7042
Telephone (267) 330 3000
Facsimile (267) 330 3300
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 4, 2002

Board of Directors
PPL Corporation
Two North Ninth Street
Allentown, PA 18101-1179

Dear Directors:

We are providing this letter to you for inclusion as an exhibit to your Form 10-K filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K.

We have audited the consolidated financial statements of PPL Corporation, includedin the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001and issued our report thereon datedFebruary 4, 2002.  Note 14to the financial statements describes a change in accounting principle related to the method of amortization of unrecognized gains and losses in the annual pension expense/income determined under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 87, "Employers' Accounting for Pensions" ("SFAS 87").  Under the prior method, unrecognized gains and losses in excess of ten percent were amortized on a straight line basis over the estimated average future service period of plan participants.  Under the current method, a second corridor will be utilized for unrecognized gains and losses in excess of thirty percent of the plan's projected benefit obligation. Unrecognized gains and losses on the second corridor will be amortized on a straight-line method over a period equal to one-half of the average future service period of the active plan participants who are expected to receive plan benefits.  It should be understood that the preferability of one acceptable method of accounting over another for the amortization of unrecognized gains or losses calculated in the annual pension expense/income determined under SFAS 87has not been addressed in any authoritative accounting literature, and in expressing our concurrence below we have relied on management's determination that this change in accounting principle is preferable.  Based on our reading of management's stated reasons and justification for this change in accounting principle in the Form 10-K, and our discussions with management as to their judgment about the relevant business planning factors relating to the change,
we concur with management that such change represents, in the Company's circumstances, the adoption of a preferable accounting principle in conformity
 with Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 20.

Very truly yours,

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
#### 15.001 Definitions.

As used in this part—

*Deficiency* is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

*Proposal modification* is a change made to a proposal before the solicitation closing date and time, or made in response to an amendment, or made to correct a mistake at any time before award.

*Proposal revision* is a change to a proposal made after the solicitation closing date, at the request of or as allowed by a contracting officer, as the result of negotiations.

*Weakness* means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A “significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

[62 FR 51230, Sept. 30, 1997, as amended at 66 FR 2129, Jan. 10, 2001]
#### In the Matter of Marjo Rest. Inc., Petitioner, v. New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Proceeding under article 78 of the former Civil Practice Act, to review and annul a determination of the State Liquor Authority, made on December 28, 1962 after a hearing, which suspended petitioner’s liquor license for a period of 60 days. By order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, made January 23, 1963 pursuant to statute (former Civ. Prac. Act, § 1296), the proceeding has been transferred to this court for disposition. Determination confirmed, without costs (cf. *Matter of Castelluceio v*. *State Liq. Auth.,*14 N Y 2d 702, revg. 18 A D 2d 1090). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### DE STEFANO v. BROWN et al. (two cases). ROMAN v. SAME. DINORCIA v. SAME.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Security for Costs—Order after Answer—Setting Aside—Discretion.

It rests within the discretion of the trial court to set aside an order requiring plaintiff to give security for costs, made after defendants had answered.

3. Same—Abuse of Discretion.

Where a satisfactory excuse was given for defendants’ failure to ask for an order requiring plaintiff to give security for costs till after answer, and it appeared that plaintiff was financially irresponsible, and that the cause of action arose outside of the state, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in afterwards refusing to set aside the order.

Appeal from City Court of New York.

Actions by Bartolomeo De Stefano, Anna De Stefano, Teresa Roman, an infant, by Chas. Roman, her guardian ad litem, and Louisa Dinorcia, an infant, by Rafaela Dinorcia, her guardian, against Charles A. Brown and John Fleming, doing business as Brown & Fleming. From orders in each of the four cases denying motions to set aside orders requiring plaintiffs to file securities for costs, plaintiffs- appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.

Palmieri & Wechsler, for appellants.

F. W. Park, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

In each of these cases the plaintiff is a nonresident, and, if the defendants had moved for security for costs before answer, they would have been entitled to it as a matter of right. Having obtained the order after answer, the question, on plaintiffs’ motion to vacate it, was addressed to the discretion of the court. Upon all the facts as they were made to appear, and especially as a satisfactory excuse for the delay was presented, and the plaintiff was shown to be financially irresponsible, and the alleged cause of action arose outside of this state, we cannot hold that there was an abuse of discretion. The order in each case is affirmed, with costs.
§ 77.1437 End attachment retermination. Damaged or deteriorated wire rope shall be removed by cutoff and the rope reterminated where there is— ( a ) More than one broken wire at an attachment;
( b ) Improper installation of an attachment;
( c ) Slippage at an attachment; or
( d ) Evidence of deterioration from corrosion at an attachment.