alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1409.105 Calculation of payments. ( a ) For non-specialty crops, the payment under this subpart will be calculated by multiplying the county payment rate by the 2019 reported planted acreage for a farm not to exceed the sum of planted and prevented planted acres of non-specialty crops on the farm in 2018, and available acreage from 2018 expired Conservation Reserve Program contracts. Producers' payments may be adjusted as determined by CCC and as detailed in the applicable NOFA.
( b ) For non-specialty prevented planted crops followed by a CCC approved cover crop, the payment rate will be $15 per acre.
( c ) For dairy and livestock, the payment under this subpart will be calculated by multiplying the total production of the commodity times the producer's eligible share of the commodity times the payment rate for that commodity, as provided for in a subsequent NOFA.
( d ) For specialty crops, the payment under this subpart will be calculated by multiplying 2019 bearing acres of the specialty crop by the payment rate for the relevant specialty crop.
( e ) For MFP payments: ( 1 ) The first payment will be up to 50 percent of the total calculated payment.
( 2 ) CCC will determine if any further payments are warranted. If CCC determines that a second payment is warranted, it will be up to 75 percent of the total calculated payment less the amount received in the first payment and the second payment period will begin in November 2019.
( 3 ) If CCC determines that a final payment is warranted, it will be for up to the remaining amount of the total calculated payment, unless otherwise adjusted by CCC, and the last payment period will begin in January 2020.
§ 1489.12 Participation eligibility. ( a ) To participate in the RAPP as a RAPP Participant, an entity must be: ( 1 ) A nonprofit U.S agricultural trade organization;
( 2 ) A nonprofit SRTG;
( 3 ) A U.S. agricultural cooperative; or
( 4 ) A State agency.
( b ) CCC will enter into an agreement only for the promotion of an eligible commodity.
( c ) FAS may set forth specific eligibility information, including any factors or priorities that will affect the eligibility of an applicant or application for selection, in the full text of the applicable NOFO posted on the U.S. Government website for grant opportunities.
#### Gladys Labetti et al., Appellants, v. Fanley Associates Inc., Respondent.

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, and on the facts, and a new trial ordered, with $50 costs and disbursements to abide the event. In this personal injury action it is alleged the female plaintiff was caused to fall down a stairway of a multiple dwelling because of foreign matter on one of the steps. The court’s charge enabled the jury to decide the issue of constructive notice to the defendant solely on the failure of the witness Carieri to observe the foreign matter shortly before the occurrence. The ultimate factual issue is whether the foreign matter was present during the period the plaintiff alleges; that the said witness did not see the condition is a relevant consideration but not conclusive on the issue of constructive notice. The said charge constituted prejudicial error. The court’s refusal of plaintiffs’ request to charge the provisions of subdivisions 1 and 2 of section 80 of the Multiple Dwelling Law, pertaining to the duty of the owner of a multiple dwelling to keep the hallways clean, was also prejudicial error. *(Taggart*v. *Vogel, 3*N Y 2d 58, 60; *Vallina*v. *Wright & Kremers,*7 A D 2d 101, 109.) Moreover, the exclusion of evidence as to the extent of artificial lights at or near the site of the occurrence also was erroneous. Plaintiffs do not ground negligence on the inadequacy of the lighting. Nevertheless, it is the burden of the plaintiffs to establish freedom from contributory negligence on which issue the extent of light and the visual capacity of the female plaintiff was relevant. An appropriate charge would limit evidence of the lighting to the issue of contributory negligence. *(Nappi*V. *Falcon Truck Renting Corp.,*286 App. Div. 123, 127.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Tilzer and McNally, JJ.
#### Freeman *v.*Gragg.

*Application for Rehearing under the Statute*

1. *Application for rehearing under the statute; when petition fatally defective.*— A petition for a rehearing under the statute after final judgment at law (Code of 1876, §§ 3161-2), on the ground of newly discovered evidence, which fails to show in what the testimony consisted, and that it was not merely cumulative of a fact or facts, of which some proof was made on the trial, and that it was not discovered until after the adjournment of the court at which the trial was had, is fatally defective.

Appeal from Chilton Circuit Court.

Tried before Hon. John P. Hubbard.

This was a petition for a rehearing under the the statute, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, by the appellant, plaintiff in an action of detinue in which the appellee was defendant, and in which a trial had been had, resulting in a verdict and judgment for the appellee."

The defendant interposed a demurrer to the petition; and, on the hearing, a judgment was entered, sustaining the demurrer, and quashing a *supersedeas*issued on the filing of the petition. That judgment is here assigned as error.

W. A. Collier, for appellant.

Name of counsel for appellee not disclosed by the record.

STONE, J.

— Without referring to others, there are two conclusive reasons why the prayer of the petitioner in this cause should not have been granted. First, a failure to show the testimony was not discovered until after the adjournment of the term of the court at which the trial was had. This averment was necessary, as an excuse for not applying for a new trial. Second, a failure to show in what the. testimony consisted, and that it was not merely cumulative of a fact or facts, of which some proof was made on the former trial. The rule on these points is *strict.*— Ex *parte*Walker, 54 Ala. 577; *Blood v.*Beadle, 65 Ala. 103; 2 Brick. Dig. 280; *Bowden v.*Perdue, 59 Ala. 409.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 68604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28165]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1719]


Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 70; Detroit, Michigan

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Greater Detroit Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of 
Foreign-Trade Zone 70, submitted an application to the Board for 
authority to expand FTZ 70 to include two sites in the Detroit, 
Michigan, area, adjacent to the Detroit Customs and Border Protection 
port of entry (FTZ Docket 14-2010, filed 2/24/2010);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the 
Federal Register (75 FR 11514, 3/11/2010 and 75 FR 15679, 3/30/2010) 
and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the 
Board's regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application to expand FTZ 70 is approved, subject to the FTZ 
Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of October 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

Attest:
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28165 Filed 11-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, Richard Coglon, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
| (1) | the annual report on Form 20-F of Bradner Ventures Ltd. for the year ended November 30, 2006 (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 Bradner Ventures Ltd. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Dated:  June 26, 2007

/s/ Richard Coglon

Richard Coglon 

President and Secretary

(Principal Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Bradner Ventures Ltd. and will be retained by Bradner Ventures Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

CW1277066.1
#### Lucy Riley, appellee, v. W. G. Musser, appellant.

Gen. No. 8,272.

Opinion filed January 24, 1929.

W. St. J. Wines and Evan Worth, for appellant. Harold E. Trapp, for appellees.

Mr. Justice Shurtleff

delivered the opinion of the court.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE GUADALUPE VIVANCORODRIGUEZ, AKA Guadalupe VivancoRodriguez, AKA Jose G. VivanoRodriguez,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-71254

Agency No. A070-826-910

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 13, 2015** 

Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Jose Guadalupe Vivanco-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen

FILED

MAY 19 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. 

Arrieta v. INS, 117 F.3d 429, 430 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). We deny the

petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Vivanco-Rodriguez’s

motion to reopen on the grounds that notice was proper and that VivancoRodriguez failed to rebut the strong presumption of effective service arising from

the service of his hearing notice by certified mail. See Matter of Grijalva, 21 I. &

N. Dec. 27, 37 (BIA 1995) (“[W]here service of a notice of deportation proceeding

is sent by certified mail through the United States Postal Service and there is proof

of attempted delivery and notification of certified mail, a strong presumption of

effective service arises.”); Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 822-23 (9th

Cir. 2011) (finding that a sworn affidavit claiming lack of notice was not sufficient

to overcome the strong presumption of effective service where notice of hearing

was sent via certified mail to alien’s last known address).

Vivanco-Rodriguez’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 12-71254
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: November 8, 2007
    
    By:
    
    /s/      KEVIN P. BAGBYKevin P. Bagby,Vice President, Finance andChief Financial Officer
----

 Exhibit 32 

 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 K-Tronik International  Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2004 as  filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,  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 their 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 operation of the Company. |

| Dated:  December 22, 2005 | */s/ Gerry Racicot*      Gerry Racicot      President, CEO and Treasurer |
|--------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
EXHIBIT 23.1


                               [GRAPHIC  OMITED]

                            Porter Keadle Moore, LLP
                            ------------------------




            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We have issued our report dated February 20, 2004, accompanying the consolidated
financial  statements included in the Annual Report of NBOG Bancorporation, Inc.
on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 and 2002.  We hereby consent
to the incorporation by reference of said report in the December 31, 2004 Annual
Report  of  NBOG  Bancorporation,  Inc.  on  Form  10-KSB  (File No. 001-16413).


                                                 /s/ Porter Keadle Moore, LLP



Atlanta,  Georgia
March  31,  2005


                          Certified Public Accountants

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Suite 1800 - 235 Peachtree Street NE - Atlanta, Georgia 30303 - Phone
                 404-588-4200 - Fax 404-588-4222 - www.pkm.com
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 218 (Friday, November 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 69432]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28480]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL11-3-000]


Ross Bachofer v. Calpine Corporation; Notice of Complaint

November 4, 2010.
    Take notice that on October 26, 2010, pursuant to sections 206 of 
the Rules and Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and section 206 of 
the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 2824c, Ross Bachofer (Complainant) 
filed a complaint against Calpine Corporation (Respondent), alleging 
that damages to the Complainant's property are due to flooding caused 
by the Respondent.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's 
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before 
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and 
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7a3c3f283935141613141f290f0a0a15080e3a1c1f0819541d150c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="89cfccdbcac6e7e5e0e7ecdafcf9f9e6fbfdc9efecfbeaa7eee6ff">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 24, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28480 Filed 11-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit
31.1




CERTIFICATION




I, Yijun
Wang, certify that:




1. I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Jpak Group,
Inc.;




2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;




3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;




4. The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:




(a) designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;




(b) evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and




(c) disclosed
in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;




5. The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):




(a) all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and




(b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.




Date: December
12, 2008




/s/
      Yijun WangYijun
      WangChief
      Executive Officer, President, Director
              (Principal
      Executive Officer)
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 of Palomine Mining Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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 his 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 the Company.





Date:  June 19, 2007





/s/ Eugene Larabie

---------------------------------------

Eugene Larabie, Principal Financial Officer