alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1778.11 Maximum grants. ( a ) Grants up to $1,000,000 may be made to alleviate a significant decline in quantity or quality of water available to a rural area that occurred within two years of filing an application with the Agency, or to attempt to avoid a significant decline that is expected to occur during the twelve month period following the filing of an application.
( b ) Grants made for repairs, partial replacement, or significant maintenance on an established system to remedy an acute shortage or significant decline in the quality or quantity of potable water, or an anticipated acute shortage or significant decline, cannot exceed $150,000.
( c ) Grants under this part, subject to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, shall be made for 100 percent of eligible project costs.
[68 FR 46078, Aug. 5, 2003, as amended at 85 FR 23211, Apr. 27, 2020]
#### Bohannon *vs.*Broadwell.

uebt. Case 7.

Appeal from the Woodford Circuit; W. *h.*Kei.ly, Judge.

*Practice. JVul tiel record. Demurrer.*

Nul *tiel reco*rd, a good plea to tmn of debt, bomb altiio’ the decíantion merely avers the atfirmarme of the original judgment out^conoludineprout *patet per recordmi.*

November 8.

Chief Justice Rorertson,

delivered tho opinion of the Court.

Tins is an action of debt, brought by the defendant against the plaintiff in error, on an appeal bond. The declaration averred that the decree appealed from, liad been affirmed. The circuit court, after overruling a demurrer to the declaration, sustained a demurrer to a plea of *nul tiel record-,*and thereupon judgment was rendered for damages assessed on a writ of enquiry.

The plea is good. It is, in effect, a denial of the allegation of affirmance; for if there be no record affirmance, the decree could not have been aff3rmetp ;s not material, therefore whether *nul leil*record, ora plea simply denying that the decree had been affirmed, would have been most formal: In this case they would be the same in effect.

. But *nul tiel record*was the most appropriate plea, The technical mode of declaring would have been, (-0 aVer that the decree had been affirmed, *“as appears by the*record.” But simply averring that the decree had been affirmed is, in substance, equivalent t0 the more technical averment. Tf the averment had added, *“prout patet per recordum'’’*it would certainly have been proper to plead that there was no such record; for, whenever a declaration avers that a material fact appears by a record, the proper plea is *nul tiel*record; and, consequently, as the decía*33ration can be sustained only on the ground that the averment that the decree had been affirmed, implies that there was a record of the affirmance, the plea of *nul tiel*record, was not only in substance and effect, but in form also, the proper plea. And surely, if it be true, there is no cause of action. The circuit court, therefore, erred in sustaining the demurrer to the plea. Wherefore the judgment is reversed, and the case remanded with instructions to.overrule the demurrer to the plea.

*Maggin*for appellant, *Payne*for appellee.
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 38

 40

★

▲

▲ ▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲

▲

▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

05/25

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 25 May 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 77.38 W Meters AGL
#### In the Matter of the City of New York, Appellant-Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property to be Acquired for the New Municipal Building and Others (Manhattan Civic Center Area) Bounded by Broadway and Other Streets, in the Borough of Manhattan. In the Matter of the City of New York, Appellant-Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property to be Acquired for an Addition to the Site for a New Municipal Building Annex *531and Others (Manhattan Civic Center Area Addition) Bounded by Broadway and Other Streets, in the Borough of Manhattan. 290 Broadway, Inc., et al., Respondents-Appellants; Dossena Realty Corp., Appellant.

The second separate and partial decree, entered July 3, 1968, is unanimously modified, on the law and facts, as to Damage Parcel 16, with $50 costs and disbursements to claimant-appellant Dossena Realty Corp., and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements. D. P. 16 affects 14 Reade Street, New York City, a seven-story and basement structure on a plot 18% feet by 76 feet, owner-occupied and used for a :bar and grill on the first floor, a banquet room on the second floor, and dressing rooms and storage purposes on the third floor. The top four floors, designated for office space, were in disuse. Part'of the basement was occupied by a barber shop at $840 annually. An elevator in the building was not used. The court award of $44,500 for the land is unchallenged. The building award of $24,500, in our opinion, is inadequate. There is proof of gross rental value of $12,315, reduced by 5% for contingencies, or $615, making an adjusted rental value of $11,700. Deducting therefrom $600 for heat, as the trial court did, and other expenses of $3,526 yields a net income of $7,574. Therefrom should be deducted $2,670, the 6% annual return on land value of $44,500, which, as stated above, is unchallenged. Capitalizing the remainder of $4,904 at 12%, the rate the trial court used, yields a more realistic building value of $40,866, instead of $24,500, or a total value of land and building of $85,366. The final award should be modified to the extent of increasing the award for Damage Parcel 16 to $85,500. Settle order on notice. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Capozzoli, McNally and Steuer, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

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 American Tire Distributors Holdings, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his best knowledge:



| | (a) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 4, 2008 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |        |  |                                                     
|------------------------ |  | ------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 18, 2008 |  | By:    |  | /s/    RICHARD P.
JOHNSON                           
|                         |  | Name:  |  | Richard P. Johnson                                  
|                         |  | Title: |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                
|                         |  |       
|                         |  | By:    |  | /s/    DAVID L.
DYCKMAN                             
|                         |  | Name:  |  | David L. Dyckman                                    
|                         |  | Title: |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1757

___________________________

James Watson

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Osceola Police Department; Mississippi County Sheriff’s Department; Arkansas

Parole Board

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro

____________

 Submitted: October 15, 2015

 Filed: November 6, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
James Watson appeals the district court’s 28 U.S.C. § 1915A dismissal, 1

without prejudice, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the

record and Watson’s arguments on appeal, we conclude that the dismissal was proper

for the reasons stated by the district court. See Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783

(8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (§ 1915A dismissal is reviewed de novo). Accordingly,

the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas.

-2-
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 17, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00125-CV

RITA LEMONS, Appellant

V.

HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET. AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1003584

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This appeal is from a judgment signed February 5, 2012. No clerk’s record has 

been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the 

court appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record. 

On April 13, 2012, notification was transmitted to all parties of the court’s 

intention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen days, 

appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and provided this court with 

proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).
2

Appellant has not provided this court with proof of payment for the record. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Brown.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 29, 2024

NO. 03-23-00067-CR

David Cardenas, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 460TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, TRIANA AND SMITH

MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on January 18, 2023. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the trial court’s judgment but that there was error requiring correction. Therefore, the Court 

modifies the judgment to remove the statement that Cardenas pleaded “not true” to the motion to 

adjudicate and reflect instead that Cardenas made “no plea” to the motion to adjudicate. The 

Court affirms the judgment as modified. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, 

no adjudication of costs is made.
EXHIBIT32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 USC, SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the amended quarterly report of Northern Ethanol, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB/A1 for the nine month period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Rule 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Dated: January 15, 2007 | s/Richard Smith

Richard Smith, Chief Financial Officer
|----------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
#### John N. LUCAS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 11862.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Jan. 21, 1954.

Mr. Armand I. Robinson, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. Lewis A. Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before STEPHENS, Chief Judge, and PRETTYMAN and BAZELON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was jointly indicted, for violation of D.C.Code Title 22, § 2901 (1951), with the appellant in Thomas v. United States, 93 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 210 F.2d 21, decided this day. Like Thomas, the appellant was convicted, after he had entered a plea of guilty, and was sentenced to serve six years and eight months to twenty years. The appellant then moved to “vacate or correct illegal sentence.” That motion was denied by the District Court on June 19, 1953. But that court, the same day, granted leave to the appellant to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs. The sole issue on appeal in this case, as in Thomas v. United States, is whether the sentence imposed was greater than the maximum permissible by law. For the reasons stated in the opinion in the Thomas case, it was. Therefore, in view of the decision in Thomas v. United States, we reverse the order of the District Court denying appellant’s motion to vacate sentence and we remand for re-sentencing under D.C.Code Title 22, Section 2901.

It is so ordered.
| 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 31, 2008 | By:    | /s/  /s/      Brian M. Carter          |   |
|                            |   | Brian      M. Carter                             |   |
|                            |   | Chief      Executive and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                            |   |                                             |   |
*Friday, August 28, 1998*

DISCRETIONARY APPEALS ALLOWED

98-1716.

#### In re Jane Doe 5.

Butler App. No. CA98-08-168. This cause is pending as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right from the Court of Appeals for Butler County. Upon consideration of appellant’s jurisdictional memorandum, motion to expedite appeal and argument and motion to seal, .

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the appeal is allowed. !

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court of Appeals for Butler County shall certify and transmit the record in this case to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio ho later than September 2,1998.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that appellant’s motion to expedite appeal and argument is granted to the extent that appellant shall file a brief no later than September 2, 1998. Upon the filing of appellant’s brief, this court will proceed to consider this case on the merits.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that appellant’s motion to seal the record is granted.

Lundberg Stratton, J., would set this case for oral argument.
From: Jones, Danielle [mailto:Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 12:48 PM

To: Cogliano, Gerain <Cogliano.Gerain@epa.gov>

Subject: RMP RIA Comment from SBA

Gerain,

This rule is not certified – but the Chapter 7 is not an IRFA – presents the costs of the rule – but no 

alternatives, no alternative costs and no alternative discussion. Is there a separate IRFA, and if so can 

we please see it. 

Thanks,

Danielle

Danielle Y. Jones

Policy Analyst

Office of Management and Budget

Phone: (202) 395-1741 | djones@omb.eop.gov
**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)**

| Dated: | August                  17, 2007 |                                                           |   | /s/                  Howard S. Balter |   |
|--------|----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                             |                                                           |   | Howard                  S. Balter     |   |
|   |                             | Chief                  Executive Officer                       |   |
|   |                             | (Principal                  Executive Officer )                |   |
|   |                             |                                                           |   |
| Dated: | August                  17, 2007 |                                                           |   | /s/                  Ilan M. Slasky   |   |
|   |                             |                                                           |   | Ilan                  M. Slasky       |   |
|   |                             | President                                                      |   |
|   |                             | (Principal                  Financial and Accounting Officer ) |   |
|   |                             |                                                           |   |
#### Ore-Lube Corp., Respondent, v Conklin Company, Inc., Appellant.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 24, 1979, as granted plaintiffs motion for a protective order with respect to certain interrogatories, and (2) a further order of the same court, dated March 29, 1979, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination. Appeal from the order dated January 24, 1979, dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements. That order was superseded by the order granting reargument. Order dated March 29, 1979 modified by adding thereto, immediately after the provision that the original determination is adhered to, the following: "except that the motion for a protective order is denied as to interrogatory numbered 23.” As so modified, said order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiffs time to answer Interrogatory No. 23 is extended until 20 days after service upon it of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. We do not approve of Special Term’s failure to advance any reasons in support of *595its determination. The information sought to be elicited by interrogatory numbered 23 will not prejudice the plaintiff or compromise any of its trade secrets. Furthermore, such information is material to the determination of plaintiff’s claim of special damages. Mangano, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
#### § 1778.8 [Reserved]
Editorial Note on Part 1956
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1956 appear at 80 FR 9901, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1956.118 Approval authority. District Directors cannot approve debt settlement actions. Therefore, they will make no statements to a debtor concerning the action that may be taken upon a debtor's application. Subject to this subpart, the compromise, adjustment, cancellation, or chargeoff of debts will be approved or rejected: ( a ) By the State Director when the outstanding balance of the indebtedness involved in the settlement is less then $50,000, including principal, interest, and other charges.
( b ) By the Administrator or his designee when the outstanding balance of the indebtedness involved in the settlement is $50,000 or more, including principal, interest, and other charges.
§ 201.73 Processors and processing of all classes of certified seed. The following requirements must be met by processors of all classes of certified seed: ( a ) Facilities shall be available to perform processing without introducing admixtures.
( b ) Identity of the seed must be maintained at all times.
( c ) Records of all operations relating to certification shall be complete and adequate to account for all incoming seed and final disposition of seed.
( d ) Processors shall permit inspection by the certifying agency of all records pertaining to all classes of certified seed.
( e ) Processors shall designate an individual who shall be responsible to the certifying agency for performing such duties as may be required by the certifying agency.
( f ) Seed lots of the same variety and class may be blended and the class retained. If lots of different classes are blended, the lowest class shall be applied to the resultant blend. Such blending can only be done when authorized by the certifying agency.
[38 FR 25662, Sept. 14, 1973]
95- 112.

#### State v. Benge.

Butler App. No. CA93-06-116. On May 24, 1996, this court stayed the execution of sentence in this cause pending disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States. Appellee has moved that this court set a date for execution of sentence. It appearing to the court that the petition for a writ of certiorari has been denied, and that all matters have been disposed *1408of in case No. 95-112, appellant’s direct appeal of his conviction, and case No. 98-1148, appellant’s post-conviction appeal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that the stay of execution entered in this cause on May 24.1996, be and is hereby revoked.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED by this court that said sentence be carried into execution by the Warden of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility or, in his absence, by the Deputy Warden on Monday, the 23rd day of November, 1998, in accordance with the statutes so provided.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certified copy of this entry and a warrant under the seal of this court be duly certified to the Warden of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility and that said Warden shall make due return thereof to the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County.