alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1212.81 Referenda. ( a ) After the initial referendum, the Secretary shall conduct subsequent referenda; ( 1 ) Every seven years, to determine whether first handlers and importers of honey or honey products favor the continuation, suspension, or termination of the Order. The Order shall continue if it is favored by a majority of first handlers and importers voting in the referendum and a majority of volume voting in the referendum who, during a representative period determined by the Secretary, have been engaged in the handling or importation of honey or honey products;
( 2 ) At the request of the Board established in this Order;
( 3 ) At the request of ten (10) percent or more of the number of persons eligible to vote under the Order; or
( 4 ) Whenever the Department deems that a referendum is necessary.
( b ) *Approval of order.* Approval in a referendum shall be established by a majority of eligible persons voting in the referendum and a majority of volume voting in the referendum who are first handlers or importers during the representative period by those voting as established by the Secretary.
( c ) *Manner of conducting referenda.* A referendum conducted under this section shall be conducted in the manner determined by the Secretary to be appropriate.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-17-00640-CR

William Boyd PORTER,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR4455

Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED November 28, 2018.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
related Form 10-Q financial statements for Ohio Edison Company and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
(Amounts in 1,000's.) Income tax expense includes $8,256,000 related
to other income.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000073960
<NAME> OHIO EDISON COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    3,283,387
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                  1,430,219
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         882,133
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                     3,009,856
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,605,595
<COMMON>                                             1
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                    2,098,728
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            585,563
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               2,684,292
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          140,000
<PREFERRED>                                    200,070
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         2,177,472
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             148,775
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 159,970
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  295,950
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                        5,000
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                 3,258
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               2,790,808
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                8,605,595
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,311,621
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           115,239
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     950,973
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,057,956
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        253,665
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                              23,804
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 277,469
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       102,840
<NET-INCOME>                                   174,629
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      5,616
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  169,013
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       109,200
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      175,461
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         434,249
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Perla Tate, Respondent, v Freeport Union School District, Appellant, and Village of Freeport, Respondent.

[777 NYS2d 188]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Freeport Union School District appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated January 16, 2003, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when she tripped and fell on a defect on a sidewalk, used as a driveway, adjacent to a parking lot reserved for faculty members of the defendant Freeport Union School District (hereinafter the School District). She commenced this action against, among others, the School District. Following the plaintiffs motion for a protective order, the School District cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. In opposition to the cross motion, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit of her expert who concluded that the condition over which she fell was caused by the weight, speed, and impact of the cars entering the School District’s lot. Specifically, the expert concluded that the “volume” of cars entering the parking lot weakened the substructure and substrata to the point where those structures gave way, creating the depression. The expert’s affidavit was based on a review of pictures of the depression taken a few days after the plaintiff’s fall, and on deposition testimony describing the condition of the sidewalk. The Supreme Court denied the cross motion for summary judgment, finding that there were issues of fact as to whether the School District created the dangerous condition and as to whether the School District made special use of the sidewalk. We agree.

*696The expert’s affidavit submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion for summary judgment was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The expert’s opinion as to the cause of the defective condition of the sidewalk and curb cut was “fairly inferable” from the evidence (see *Matter of Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Barile,*86 AD2d 362, 364-365 [1982]; *cf. Kozma v Biberfeld,*264 AD2d 817 [1999]). Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.
|Exhibit 32.1
|------------



|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofAmecs, Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period end ofJune 30, 2007as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Alexei Gavriline, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   

Dated this 7thday of August, 2007.

ALEXEI GAVRILINEAlexei GavrilineChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer





















---
---

EXHIBIT 32.1


Pursuant to Sections 302 and 906 of the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), Zhou Chang Sheng, Chief Executive Officer of YaSheng Group, Ltd. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:
  1. the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Dated: March 15, 2010
 
 /S/ Zhou Chang Sheng

Zhou Chang Sheng

Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION BY CEO PURSUANT TO SECTION
906



The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection
with Syngenta AG’s annual report on Form 20-F (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b)
or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title
18 of the United States Code.



Erik Fyrwald, the Chief Executive Officer of Syngenta AG, certifies
that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of Syngenta AG.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



February 16, 2017



|       | /s/ Erik Fyrwald        | 
|------ | ----------------------- | 
|Name:  | Erik Fyrwald           
|Title: | Chief Executive Officer
§ 1209.21 State and United States. ( a ) *State* means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
( b ) *United States* means collectively the several States of the United States of America, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 37 (Friday, February 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11764-11765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03997]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9055-4]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information 202-564-5632 or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed February 8, 2021 10 a.m. EST Through February 22, 2021 10 a.m. 
EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20210019, Final, USA, GA, Fort Benning Heavy Off-Road Mounted 
Maneuver Training Area, Review Period Ends: 03/29/2021, Contact: Mr. 
John Brown 706-545-7549.
EIS No. 20210020, Final, USACE, CA, Prado Basin Water Conservation and 
Ecosystem Restoration Study, Review Period Ends: 03/29/2021, Contact: 
Megan Wong 213-448-4517.
EIS No. 20210021, Final Supplement, BOP, KS, Proposed Federal 
Correctional Institution and Federal Prison Camp Leavenworth, Kansas, 
Review Period Ends: 03/29/2021, Contact: Kimberly S. Hudson 202-616-
2574.
EIS No. 20210022, Draft Supplement, CHSRA, CA, Bakersfield to Palmdale 
Project Section: Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Comment Period

[[Page 11765]]

Ends: 04/12/2021, Contact: Scott Rothenberg 916-403-6936.

    Dated: February 22, 2021.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2021-03997 Filed 2-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Vital Signs: Alcohol Poisoning Death      

# Vital Signs: Alcohol Poisoning Death

On average, 6 people died every day from alcohol poisoning in the United States from 2010 to 2012. The January 2015 issue of CDC’s *Vital Signs*illustrates the issue of alcohol poisoning, its deadly consequences, and what can be done to reduce and prevent binge drinking. 

http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/alcohol-poisoning-deaths/index.html?utm_source=FindYouthInfo&utm_medium=Federal%20Links&utm_campaign=Reports-and-Resources
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Cinergy Corp., The Cincinnati Gas & ElectricCompany, PSI Energy, Inc. and The Union Light, Heat and Power Company (the“Companies”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, R. Foster Duncan, Chief Financial Officer of the Companies,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief,that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations of theCompanies.

 

 
| /s/ R. Foster Duncan    |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| R. Foster Duncan        |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| November 13, 2003  |

 

----
#### § 1209.77 Separability.

If any provision of this subpart is declared invalid, or the applicability thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this subpart or the applicability thereof to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Resource: Preventing Prescription Drug Misuse      

# Resource: Preventing Prescription Drug Misuse

This decision-support tool presents key findings from a review of current research on the non-medical use of prescription drugs. It presents a summary of risk and protective factors associated with prescription drug misuse, as well as programs and strategies shown to be effective in addressing these factors.

http://www.samhsa.gov/capt/tools-learning-resources/preventing-prescription-drug-misuse-overview-factors-strategies?utm_source=Youth.gov&utm_campaign=Reports-and-Resources&utm_medium=federal-links
§ 1.412 Institution of proceedings. ( a ) *Sourcing area applications.* The proceeding for determining sourcing areas shall be instituted by receipt of a sourcing area application by the Office of Administrative Law Judges, pursuant to 36 CFR 223.190.
( b ) *Review of sourcing areas.* Informal review of a sourcing area precedes institution of a formal review as follows: ( 1 ) *Request by Sourcing area holder.* A sourcing area holder who wishes to begin a review of a sourcing area shall send a written request for a review to the Regional Forester of the region in which the manufacturing facility being sourced is located. The request shall state the reason for the request. ( i ) *Informal review.* The Regional Forester shall begin an informal review, pursuant to 36 CFR 223.191(e), based on the written request. If no agreement is reached in the informal review process, the Regional Forester of the region in which the manufacturing facility being sourced is located shall transmit to the Office of Administrative Law Judges any submissions received during the informal review process, within 5 working days of the meeting convened during the informal review (36 CFR 223.191)e)). Agreement is reached when all persons attending the meeting convened by the Regional Forester to resolve differences as to the proper sourcing area, including the Regional Forester, sign the document describing the sourcing area.
( ii ) *Formal review.* Institution by a sourcing area holder of a formal review of the sourcing area occurs if the informal review process does not result in agreement among the parties, and the sourcing area holder submits a sourcing area application to the Office of the Administrative Law Judges, pursuant to 36 CFR 223.190, within 10 working days after the meeting convened by the Regional Forester as part of the informal process.
( 2 ) *Initiation of review by agency.* If the Forest Service wishes to begin a review of a sourcing area, the Regional Forester of the region in which the manufacturing facility being sourced is located shall begin an informal review, pursuant to 36 CFR 223.191(e). If no agreement is reached in the informal review process, the Regional Forester of the region in which the manufacturing facility being sourced is located shall transmit to the Office of Administrative Law Judges any submissions received during the informal review process, within 5 working days of the meeting convened during the informal review (36 CFR 223.191(e)). Agreement is reached when all persons attending the meeting convened by the Regional Forester to resolve differences as to the proper sourcing area, including the Regional Forester, sign the document describing the sourcing area. Institution by the Forest Service of a formal review of a sourcing area occurs when the Office of Administrative Law Judges receives the papers and documents submitted during the informal review process.
### Notes from Meeting with CVS

**Attended by:** CVS Staff: Pat Perry , Carole DeNale, Keith Seavey Troutman Sanders: Greg Blount Greenberg Traurig: Patrick Anderson EPA Staff: Kristin Fitzgerald , Jessica Young, Charlotte Mooney **Date:** November 8, 2012
EPA m et with representative s of CVS and their outside counsel CVS discussed their waste management operations. They indicated that a patchwork of regulations across the country makes it challenging for national chains to comply . They stressed the importance of a simple regulatory program that is easy

to train their employees on. They also indicated that the company receives approximately

$1 billion/y ear in manufacturers’ credit for pharmaceuticals via reverse distribution.
#### Donald Brenner, Appellant, v County of Rockland, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages, *inter alia,*for malicious prosecution and false arrest, plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated February 17, 1978, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint and (2) a judgment of the same court entered thereon on March 24, 1978. Appeal from order dismissed, without costs or disbursements (see *Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiffs complaint, alleging malicious prosecution, false arrest, and other related causes of action, was properly dismissed. A prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity for actions taken within the scope of his official duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution and in presenting the State’s case (see *Imbler v Pachtman,*424 US 409; *Yaselli v Goff,*12 F2d 396, affd 275 US 503). All of the acts complained of by the plaintiff (e.g., the alleged withholding of material evidence and the failure to thoroughly investigate the matter) were intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process, and were performed by the prosecutor in a quasi-judicial capacity. Under *Imbler*and *Yaselli,*a prosecutor is protected by the shield of immunity from civil suits alleging impropriety in the manner in which he performed his quasi-judicial function, and this includes the manner in which evidence is presented to the Grand Jury. The forwarding to the Internal Revenue Service of information warranting further investigation, while the indictment in this case was pending, was also performed by the prosecutor within the scope of his official duties. O’Connor, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Shapiro, JJ., concur. [92 Misc 2d 833.]