alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Acme Folding Box Co., Inc., Appellant, v Finance Administration of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

— In a tax certiorari proceeding, petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 29, 1978, which, after a hearing, denied its motion to amend the "admission of service” of its petition to reflect service on October 20, 1977. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted. In order to be timely the instant proceeding had to be commenced before October 25, 1977. An agent of the petitioner appeared at the office of the Tax Commission for the City of New York on Thursday, October 20, 1977, with the intention of filing the necessary petition to commence the proceeding. Although the petition was apparently properly prepared and legally constituted, the clerk in charge refused to accept it because it did not meet the requirement adopted by the president of the tax commission that the petition must have a Supreme Court index number. Thereafter, the agent employed a clerical service to obtain,an index number, which it did on Friday, October 21,1977. For a reason not apparent on the record before us, the petition was not returned to the petitioner until after 4:30 p.m. on Monday, October 24, 1977, when, we are told, it was physically impossible to *690file the document that day. October 24 was the last day the petition could be timely filed. It was filed on October 25, 1977, at about 9:30 a.m. While it is true, as the respondents and Special Term observed, that the petitioner did have three business days within which to file its petition according to the requirements of the tax commission, we think that the petitioner should not have been required to do anything more than it did up to October 20, 1977, when its agent presented an otherwise properly composed petition in conformity with the promulgated and properly adopted laws and regulations of the State and City of New York. The record reveals that the index number requirement was adopted by the president of the tax commission strictly for the benefit of the workings of his office, and that with the exception of possible word of mouth knowledge transferred from one practitioner to another, there had been no public promulgation of the requirement; it has not been adopted as a regulation of the tax commission in accordance with the law (see NY City Charter, § 1105, subd b), and, even if it had been, its validity would be highly questionable (see *Matter of 749 Broadway Realty Corp. v Boyland,*1 Mise 2d 575, affd 1 AD2d 819, affd 3 NY2d 737). The imposition by the president of the tax commission of the index number requirement was without authority in law. The petitioner, having attempted to timely file the petition, should not be penalized and held to have forfeited its right to review merely because it failed to comply with a rule of convenience imposed by the tax commission. The petition is to be deemed accepted by the tax commission on October 20, 1977, the day it was properly presented for filing and improperly rejected by the tax commission clerk. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Shapiro and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
**Deadline:  February 28, 2024**

| Text Documents | APR Web Site | Help | Program Specialists |

## Text Documents

- Letter to EOC Project Directors , November 2023   |     MS Word  (33K) 
- Instructions  for Completing the EOC Annual Performance Report for Program Year 2022-23:    MS Word  (73K)
- EOC Annual Performance Report Form  for Program Year 2022-23:    MS Word  (63K)
- Policies and Procedures for Assessing the Standard Objectives: 2021-2026 Grant   -- Appendix to APR Report:     MS Word  (39K)
- Click here for the **Quick Guide** for Login.Gov and the TRIO APR Web Portal Click here for the **Detailed Guide**
 for Login.Gov and the TRIO APR Web Portal 
APR Web Site
As of January 24, 2024, the APR Web site for Educational Opportunity Centers will be  available  for grantees' use in submitting their reports: **https://trio.ed.gov**
Help Desk
If you encounter technical problems accessing the Web site or using the Web application, please contact the Help Desk by either telephone at **(703) 885-8008 or e-mail at TRIO@helpdesk.thetactilegroup.com**.  The Help Desk will also be able to assist should you have difficulties with registration.
Program Specialists
Please contact your program specialist directly if you have questions requiring policy clarifications or interpretations of the data requirements of the report. A state listing of program specialist assignments showing their names, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses is available.

| Performance page | EOC Home | TRIO Home |
  Last Modified: 01/24/2024
#### 352.222-70 Contractor Cooperation in Equal Employment Opportunity Investigations.

As prescribed in HHSAR 322.810(h), the Contracting Officer shall insert the following clause:

# Contractor Cooperation in Equal Employment Opportunity Investigations (DEC 2015)

(a) In addition to complying with the clause at FAR 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity, the Contractor shall, in good faith, cooperate with the Department of Health and Human Services (Agency) in investigations of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints processed pursuant to 29 CFR part 1614. For purposes of this clause, the following definitions apply:

(1) *Complaint* means a formal or informal complaint that has been lodged with Agency management, Agency EEO officials, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), or a court of competent jurisdiction.

(2) *Contractor employee* means all current Contractor employees who work or worked under this contract. The term also includes current employees of subcontractors who work or worked under this contract. In the case of Contractor and subcontractor employees, who worked under this contract, but who are no longer employed by the Contractor or subcontractor, or who have been assigned to another entity within the Contractor's or subcontractor's organization, the Contractor shall provide the Agency with that employee's last known mailing address, email address, and telephone number, if that employee has been identified as a witness in an EEO complaint or investigation.

(3) *Good faith cooperation* cited in paragraph (a) includes, but is not limited to, making Contractor employees available for:

(i) Formal and informal interviews by EEO counselors or other Agency officials processing EEO complaints;

(ii) Formal or informal interviews by EEO investigators charged with investigating complaints of unlawful discrimination filed by Federal employees;

(iii) Reviewing and signing appropriate affidavits or declarations summarizing statements provided by such Contractor employees during the course of EEO investigations;

(iv) Producing documents requested by EEO counselors, EEO investigators, Agency employees, or the EEOC in connection with a pending EEO complaint; and

(v) Preparing for and providing testimony in depositions or in hearings before the MSPB, EEOC and U.S. District Court.

(b) The Contractor shall include the provisions of this clause in all subcontract solicitations and subcontracts awarded at any tier under this contract.

(c) Failure on the part of the Contractor or its subcontractors to comply with the terms of this clause may be grounds for the Contracting Officer to terminate this contract for default.

(End of clause)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7562

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM TERRENCE CROSS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District 

Judge. (2:03-cr-00010-RBS-1)

Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 23, 2011

Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Terrence Cross, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro 

Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Terrence Cross appeals the district court’s 

order denying his second motion for reconsideration of its 

previous order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion 

for a sentence reduction. The district court’s order denying 

the reduction was entered on April 13, 2010. On October 15, 

2010, Cross filed a second motion for reconsideration of that 

order, which the district court denied. As the district court 

lacked the authority to grant reconsideration of its previous 

order, United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233 (4th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 130 S. Ct. 3530 (2010), we affirm the district court’s 

order denying reconsideration. We deny Cross’s motion to remand 

for resentencing. We dispense with oral argument as the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY




KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned directors and
officers of AMCORE Financial, Inc., a Nevada corporation, which is about to file
an annual report for the year ended December 31, 1999 pursuant to Section 13 of
15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934 on Form 10-K with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C., 20549 hereby constitutes and appoints
ROBERT J. MEULEMAN and JOHN R. HECHT, and each of them, his true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agents with power of substitution and resubstitution, from
them and in their name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the
Company's Form 10-K and other documents in connection therewith with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto the attorneys-in-fact and
agents, and each of them full power and authority to do and perform each and
every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as they might or could do in
person, thereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and
agents or any of them, or their substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done
by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, know that the undersigned as a director or officer has
hereunto set their hand as of this ___________________ day of March, 2000.







                                             ------------------------------
                                                      Signature
#### 3432.000 Scope of part.
# C_2020432EN.01000601.xml

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

11 December 2020

(2020/C 432/06)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2127 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 126,28 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4429 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,92294 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,2560 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0786 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 154,80 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,6968 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,328 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 354,81 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4358 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,8698 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 9,5678 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6090 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5487 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,3999 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7100 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6213 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 325,32 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 18,3435 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,9386 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5375 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 17 074,82 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9133 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,339 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 88,7373 |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,496 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,1448 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 24,4157 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 89,4705 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2127

JPY

Japanese yen

126,28

DKK

Danish krone

7,4429

GBP

Pound sterling

0,92294

SEK

Swedish krona

10,2560

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0786

ISK

Iceland króna

154,80

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,6968

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,328

HUF

Hungarian forint

354,81

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4358

RON

Romanian leu

4,8698

TRY

Turkish lira

9,5678

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6090

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5487

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,3999

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7100

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6213

KRW

South Korean won

1 325,32

ZAR

South African rand

18,3435

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,9386

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5375

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

17 074,82

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9133

PHP

Philippine peso

58,339

RUB

Russian rouble

88,7373

THB

Thai baht

36,496

BRL

Brazilian real

6,1448

MXN

Mexican peso

24,4157

INR

Indian rupee

89,4705

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24
- 6307

JAMES DAVID WATWOOD , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. LARRY T. EDMUNDS, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 3:22

- cv - 00381

- JAG

- MRC )

Submitted : August 2 2 , 2024 Decided: August 27, 2024

Before WILKINSON , WYNN , and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judge s
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. James David Watwood, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6307 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: James David Watwood seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this stan dard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115

- 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constituti onal right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Watwood’s informal brief, we conclude that he has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) ( “ The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief. ” )

. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
proc ess. DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 24-6307 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT
32











Certification


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code)





Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63
of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Chattem,
Inc., a Tennessee corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such
officer’s knowledge, that:





The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended August 31, 2008 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.






Date:
      October 10, 2008
              /s/ Zan
      GuerryZan
      GuerryChairman
      and Chief Executive Officer




Date:
      October 10, 2008
                /s/ Robert
      B. LongRobert
      B. LongVice
      President and Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q, or as a separate
disclosure
document.





A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN
STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO CHATTEM, INC. AND WILL BE
RETAINED BY CHATTEM, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON
REQUEST.
IA 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 1 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require 

that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine justices. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to require that the Supreme Court of the United 

States be composed of nine justices. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HJ 1 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE — 

2 ‘‘The Supreme Court of the United States shall be 

3 composed of nine justices consisting of one chief justice 

4 and eight associate justices.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
**EXHIBIT 31.2****Certifications**I, Mark D. Kemp, certify that:1.     I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Centex Corporation;2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand 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 maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures [as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)] andinternal control over financial reporting [as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f)] for the registrant and have:(a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)     Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regardingthe reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;(c)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d)     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.Date: August 2, 2006/s/ MARK D. KEMP
#### In the Matter of Jacob A. Voice, Deceased. Martha V. Bartos et al., as Committee of Cecile V. Tolstoi, an Incompetent, Appellants; Sidney P. Voice et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding to judicially settle the account of the executors of decedent’s estate, in which a final decree had been entered November 19, 1945 settling the account, the committee of Cecile V. Tolstoi (one of the testator’s daughters who on May 16, 1956 had -been adjudicated an incompetent person) appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County, made February 24, 1964 on reargument, which adhered to the court’s original determination made after a hearing, and which denied the committee’s motion to vacate the said decree of November 19, 1945 insofar as it affects the interests of the incompetent. Order affirmed, without costs. The motion to vacate was made on the ground that at the time of her execution (on July 31, 1945) of a waiver of citation in said proceeding, the said Cecile V. Tolstoi was of unsound mind. In our opinion, the committee failed to sustain the burden of proof to show, within the meaning of the statute (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 64), that said Cecile V. Tolstoi, now an adjudicated incompetent, was mentally incapable adequately to protect her rights on July 31, 1945, when she executed a waiver of citation and consent to the settlement of the executors’ account. Nor is there evidence to show that the execution or delivery of the document in question was obtained by a direct transaction between the fiduciaries and the said Cecile V. Tolstoi. The proof shows that on July 31, 1945 her mental condition was substantially different from her mental condition on April 3, 1952, the date of the judicial settlement of the trustees’ intermediate account, which the Surrogate has since reopened for further proceedings insofar as that decree affects the incompetent’s interests. (For decisions on three companion appeals see 22 A D 2d 855.) Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
# C_2019177EN.01005501.xml

| 23.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 177/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 177/55

---

Notice of open competition

(2019/C 177/05)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:

| | EPSO/AD/373/19 — ADMINISTRATORS (AD 5) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/373/19 — ADMINISTRATORS (AD 5)

The competition notice is published in 24 languages in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 177 A of 23 May 2019.

Further information can be found on the EPSO website: https://epso.europa.eu/

---