alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

*June 2, 2006*

[Cite as *06/02/2006 Case Announcements,*2006-Ohio-2722.]

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

2006-1029.

#### In re Disqualification of Martin.

This cause is pending before the court upon appellant’s notice of appeal from a decision under R.C. 2701.03. Whereas this court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from proceedings under that statute,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause is dismissed sua sponte.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT (32.2)

HARLEYSVILLE GROUP INC.



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 Harleysville Group Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arthur E. Chandler, Senior Vice President 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 based on my 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:  March 5,  2010 |  | /s/ARTHUR E. CHANDLER                            
|                      |  | Arthur E. Chandler                               
|                      |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Theodore Giacomino, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which held claimant ineligible to receive benefits for one period as not capable of work and for a second period as not available for employment, imposed a forfeiture for willful misrepresentation to obtain benefits and found an overpayment of benefits, held to be recoverable. The decision is in each respect supported by substantial evidence. During the first period, while ill and receiving disability benefits, claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits, indicating that his employment had terminated because of lack of work and, further, that he was not receiving or claiming sickness and disability benefits. He further indicated each week that he was able to work and available for employment. The board properly found that during the second period claimant remained outside his normal labor market and made no real search for work. Claimant’s statements above alluded to were obviously false, were properly found to be willful and resulted in recoverable overpayments. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum *Per Curiam.*
§ 1738.3 Funding parameters. ( a ) The amount of funds available for assistance, as well as the maximum and minimum Award amounts, will be published in the Federal Register. Applicants may apply for loans, loan/grant combinations, and loan guarantees.
( b ) An Applicant that provides telecommunications or broadband service to at least 20 percent of the households in the United States is limited to an Award amount that is no more than 15 percent of the funds available to the Rural Broadband Program for the Federal fiscal year.
ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET

Attachment Number 005

Attachment Name

Attachment 5 CaCoPbSrTiWO Structure

Associated PMN Section Number

Pt.I, Sec. B, le. (Chem 3)

Does not contain CBI

Report Number

CONSi 10317786855351
Attachment 5 CaCoPbSrTiWO Structure REPORT# - CONS 110317786855351

Calcium Strontium Lead Titanate

Trade names: PT; Lead Titanate; LM-95

Ca- Sr-PT is processed in 160 kg batches, weighing and batching is 4 hrs/batch,

powder break-up and calcine is 8 hrs/batch (exposure time); final mill and spray

dry is 4 hrslbatch. Total process exposure time is 16 hours/batch, maximum 13

batches/year. See process flow chart for detailed process.

Ca- Sr-PT has an infinite repeating crystal structure of the ABO3 Peroyskite

structure where A=Pb, Sr and Ca; B= Ti, W and Co

Formula is:

(Pb.71.77 Ca..28 32Sr 0.

02 .06 ) Ti..92,9 ^( 0 5 Co0.0.04-.8 03 where the Pb + Ca + Sr mole

ratio =1.0 and the Ti + W + Co mole ratio =1.0

0

0

Constituents:

Lead oxide 60-66 wt%

Calcium oxide 12-1 Swt %

Titanium dioxide 20-22 Wt%

Strontium oxide 1-3 wt%

Tungsten oxide 2-3 wt %

Cobalt oxide 1-2 wt %
#### § 1782.19 Third party agreements.

The State Director may authorize third party operation, maintenance, and management of an Agency financed facility. The borrower's attorney must review the contract, management agreement, written lease, or other third party agreement and issue an opinion to the Agency as to their legal sufficiency. The borrower shall retain the legal authority necessary for owning, constructing, operating, and maintaining the facility.
#### § 1215.26 Removal.

If a member of the Board consistently refuses to perform the duties of a member of the Board, or if a member of the Board is known to be engaged in acts of dishonesty or willful misconduct, the Board may recommend to the Secretary that the member be removed from office. Further, without recommendation of the Board, a member may be removed by the Secretary upon showing of adequate cause, including the failure by a member to submit reports or remit assessments required under this part, if the Secretary determines that such member's continued service will be detrimental to the achievement of the purposes of the Act.
#### § 160.76 Annual charge for use of standards.

The cost of providing duplicates of the United States Standards for rosin, and of maintaining such duplicates in accurate and proper condition for use in grading rosin, and of keeping necessary records thereof, shall be borne by the interested persons to whom the duplicates have been issued under § 160.74 (a) or (b) or § 160.75, and shall be defrayed by an annual charge of $20.00 for each set of duplicates, payable at the end of each Government fiscal year, or on surrender of the duplicates, computed pro-rata for the number of quarters of the fiscal year during which the duplicates were held: *Provided,* That when any set of standards issued on loan shall need servicing more often than once in any fiscal year, in order to maintain them in accurate condition for grading, and the need for such extra servicing is deemed by the Administrator to be the result of improper handling and use of the standards by the interested person or his agent, such person shall pay an additional amount of $30.00 for each such additional servicing, plus the cost of any parts or components of the standards replaced in such servicing, and any postage charges incurred by the Department in connection therewith.

[11 FR 14665, Dec. 27, 1946, as amended at 17 FR 221, Jan. 9, 1952; 20 FR 6433, Sept. 1, 1955; 46 FR 47055, Sept. 24, 1981; 47 FR 3345, Jan. 25, 1982]
#### § 1735.18 Additional equity.

If determined by the Administrator to be necessary for loan security, a borrower applying for an initial loan shall increase its net worth as a percentage of assets to the highest level recorded, not to exceed 40 percent, at the end of any calendar quarter in the period beginning 2 years prior to the receipt by RUS of the borrower's loan application form (RUS Form 490). This restoration to the higher level of net worth shall take place before RUS will determine the feasibility of the proposed loan.
#### §§ 1910.102-1910.150 [Reserved]
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1900 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1900

 To provide for the timely consideration of all licenses, permits, and 
   approvals required under Federal law with respect to the siting, 
   construction, expansion, or operation of any natural gas pipeline 
                               projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 2013

Mr. Pompeo (for himself, Mr. Matheson, Mr. Olson, Mr. Gardner, and Mr. 
 Johnson of Ohio) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the timely consideration of all licenses, permits, and 
   approvals required under Federal law with respect to the siting, 
   construction, expansion, or operation of any natural gas pipeline 
                               projects.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting 
Reform Act''.

SEC. 2. REGULATORY APPROVAL OF NATURAL GAS PIPELINE PROJECTS.

    Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717f) is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsections:
    ``(i) The Commission shall approve or deny a certificate of public 
convenience and necessity that is sought under this Act not later than 
12 months after providing public notice of the application.
    ``(j)(1) The agency responsible for issuing any license, permit, or 
approval required under Federal law in connection with the siting, 
construction, expansion, or operation of any natural gas pipeline 
project for which a certificate of public convenience and necessity is 
sought under this Act shall approve or deny the issuance of the 
license, permit, or approval not later than 90 days after the 
Commission issues its final environmental document relating to the 
project.
    ``(2) An agency may request that the Commission extend the time 
period under paragraph (1) by 30 days. The Commission shall grant such 
extension if the agency demonstrates that the extension is necessary 
because of unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the agency.
    ``(3) If an agency described in paragraph (1) does not approve or 
deny the issuance of the license, permit, or approval within the time 
period specified under para-graph (1) or (2), as applicable, such 
license, permit, or approval shall go into effect.''.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT JAMES LAMAR JOHNSON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-1115 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed May 17, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Debra Johnes Riva, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Kevin Briggs, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bilal Ahmed Faruqu, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa; and Allison C. Heim, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa (substituted as counsel of record), for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MORRIS, BADALAMENTI, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION BY PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Peter Giacalone, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of 180 Connect, Inc. 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 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 ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures, and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial 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 theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reporting financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: April 1, 2008                                          /s/ Peter Giacalone   Peter Giacalone   Chief Executive Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-22-00438-CR

Lester Hidalgo AGUILAR,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10697CR

Honorable Roland Andrade, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE CHAPA, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

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

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED June 14, 2023.

_____________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

38 39 40


### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 07/17 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jul 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.48 N 77.37 WMeters AGL
Editorial Note on Part 1944
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1944.420 Extension or revision of the grant agreement. The State Director may authorize the District Director to execute on behalf of the Government, exhibit C of this subpart, at any time during the grant period provided: ( a ) The extension period is for no more than one year from the final date of the existing Agreement.
( b ) The need for the extension is clearly justified.
( c ) If additional funds are needed, a revised budget is submitted with complete justification, and
( d ) The grantee is within the guidelines in § 1944.407 of this subpart or the State Director determines that the best interest of the Government will be served by the extension.
#### § 1221.12 Harvest.

*Harvest* means combining or threshing sorghum for grain and/or severing the stalks from the land with mechanized equipment.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

      December 9, 2011

Before

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 10‐2712

MARC E. THOMPSON,

Petitioner‐Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent‐Appellee.

Appeal from the

United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 09 C 7685

Suzanne B. Conlon,

Judge.

O R D E R

On consideration of the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc filed by Petitioner-Appellant

on October 3, 2011, no judge in regular active service requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en

banc.

The order of this court issued on August 19, 2011, is amended as follows:

Page 8 is amended by replacing the last full paragraph (beginning “Additionally, we

note that . . .”) with the following:
No. 10‐2712 Page 2

 Additionally, we note that while an expert may have testified that the cause

of the fire was “undetermined,” meaning that causes other than arson could not be

ruled out, we do not find a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s

unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. As we noted on direct appeal, there was “plenty of

other evidence from which a rational jury could find that Thompson caused the

fire,” Thompson, 523 F.3d at 810, even a fire with an “undetermined” origin. To

be sure, the relevant inquiry in this habeas matter does not concern the sufficiency

of the evidence, rather, it is whether counsel’s performance was constitutionally

deficient, and if so, whether Thompson was prejudiced. See, e.g., Richey, 498 F.3d

at 364 (“Although circumstantial evidence alone might have led to a conviction, the

question before us is not one of the sufficiency of the evidence, but of undermining

our confidence in the reliability of the result.”). We, however, find that under these

facts, the evidence in this case prevents a finding of prejudice. See United States v.

Reyes, 270 F.3d 1158, 1169 (7th Cir. 2001) (“Circumstantial evidence is of equal

probative value to direct evidence and in some cases is even more reliable.”)

(internal citations omitted).

In all other respects, all members of the original panel have voted to deny the petition

for rehearing. 

Accordingly, the petition is DENIED.
Editorial Note on Part 1940
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1940 appear at 80 FR 9876, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1940.568 Single Family Housing programs appropriations not allocated by State. The following program funds are kept in a National Office reserve and are available as determined administratively: ( a ) Section 523 Self-Help Technical Assistance Grants.
( b ) Section 523 Land Development Fund.
( c ) Section 524 Rural Housing Site Loans.
( d ) Section 509 Compensation for Construction Defects.
( e ) Section 502 Nonsubsidized Funds.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 17.1



                                                              September 26, 1996


Bruce E. Mathias
Secretary
Jack Carl/312-Futures, Inc.
200 West Adams Street
Suite 1500
Chicago, IL  60606


Dear Mr. Mathias,

     This letter will re-confirm that I have resigned as an officer and director
of Jack Carl/312-Futures, Inc. any and all of its subsidiaries and/or any and
all of its affiliates as of the close of business July 1, 1996.


Sincerely,

/S/ BURTON J. MEYER


Burton J. Meyer

                                      142
#### DARRIN, Appellant, v. FEDERAL UNION SURETY CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 2, 1906.)

Action by Ira G. Darrin against the Federal Union Surety Company.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
Summary of the Compensation of Non-Employee Directors



 Exhibit 10(u) 
  
 SUMMARY OF THE COMPENSATION OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS OF SIGMA-ALDRICH CORPORATION 
  
 Set forth below is a summary of the compensation provided to Directors who are not officers
or employees of the Company (“Non-Employee Directors”). Directors who are also officers or employees of the Company do not receive any compensation for duties performed as Directors. 
  
 Board Retainer: Each Non-Employee Director receives an annual retainer of $30,000.

  
 Stock Option Grants: The Company’s 2003 Long-Term Incentive Plan for
Non-Employee Directors provides for the annual grant of a nonqualified option to purchase 4,000 shares of common stock immediately following the Company’s Annual Meeting of Stockholders to Non-Employee Directors. In addition, an option to
purchase 10,000 shares is granted upon a Non-Employee Director’s initial election of appointment to the Board of Directors. The exercise price per share with respect to each option is the fair market value (as defined in the Plan) of the
Company’ common stock on the date the option is granted. 
  
 The following
table provides information related to the meeting fees to Non-Employee Directors: 
  

													
	 	  	Board of
Directors

	  	Audit
Committee (1)

	  	Compensation
Committee

	  	Corporate
Governance
Committee


	 Participation in person (2)
	  	$	3,000	  	$	1,000	  	$	1,000	  	$	1,000
	 Participation via conference call
	  	$	1,500	  	$	500	  	$	500	  	$	500



	(1)	The Audit Committee Chairman received $3,000 for every meeting attended in person and $1,500 for every conference call in which he participated. 


	(2)	Non-employee directors participating in person at meetings also received reimbursement of travel expenses.
§ 1735.22 Loan security. ( a ) RUS makes loans only if, in the judgment of the Administrator, the security therefor is reasonably adequate and the loan will be repaid within the time agreed. See 7 CFR 1735.18 and 7 CFR 1735.51.
( b ) RUS generally requires that borrowers provide it with a first lien on all of the borrower's property. See 7 CFR 1735.46.
( c ) The RUS will consider Government-imposed fees related to emergency communications (including State or local 911 fees) which are pledged to the repayment of a loan as security.
( d ) In the case of loans that include the financing of telephone facilities that do not constitute self-contained operating systems or units (such as lines switched by other systems), the borrower shall, in addition to the mortgage lien on all of the borrower's telephone facilities, furnish adequate assurance, in the form of contractual or other security arrangements, that continuous and efficient telephone service will be rendered.
( e ) The borrower shall provide RUS with a satisfactory Area Coverage Survey. See 7 CFR 1737.30 and 1737.31.
( f ) RUS makes loans only if the borrower's entire system, including the facilities to be constructed with the proceeds of the loan, is economically feasible, as determined by RUS.
( g ) For purposes of determining compliance with TIER requirements, unless a borrower whose existing mortgage contains TIER maintenance requirements notifies RUS in writing differently, RUS will apply the requirements described in paragraph (h) of this section to the borrower regardless of the provisions of the borrower's existing mortgage.
( h ) For Loans approved after December 22, 2008, the borrower shall be required to maintain a TIER, at the end of the Forecast Period, at least equal to the projected TIER determined by the feasibility study prepared in connection with the loan, which shall be at least 1.0 and not greater than 1.5.
( i ) Nothing in this section shall affect any rights of supplemental lenders under the RUS mortgage, or other creditors of the borrower, to limit a borrower's TIER requirement to a level above that established in paragraph (h) of this section.
( j ) A borrower will not be required to raise its TIER as a condition for receiving a loan. Additional financial, investment, and managerial controls appear in the loan contract and mortgage required by RUS.
[54 FR 13351, Apr. 3, 1989. Redesignated at 55 FR 39395, Sept. 27, 1990, as amended at 56 FR 26597, June 10, 1991; 58 FR 66254, Dec. 20, 1993; 62 FR 46870, Sept. 5, 1997; 63 FR 45678, Aug. 27, 1998; 73 FR 65726, Nov. 5, 2008; 76 FR 56094, Sept. 13, 2011; 86 FR 50608, Sept. 10, 2021]