alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1280.218 Exporter.

Each person exporting live lambs or lamb products, including an exporter directly exporting his or her own lambs or lamb products, shall remit to the Board an assessment at the rate established in § 1280.217(a) by the 15th day of the month following the month in which the live lambs were purchased for slaughter and export or live export.

[86 FR 72515, Dec. 22, 2021]
Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

130546 Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 130546 COA: 264361 Muskegon CC: 04-051083-FH BRIAN LEE HILL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 24, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH and K ELLY , JJ., would grant leave to appeal.

M ARKMAN , J., dissents and states as follows:

Defendant was charged with multiple counts involving child sexually abusive material; only one of these is at issue in this case. The Co urt of Appeals determined that under MCL 750.145c(2) a person "arranges fo r, produces, makes, or finances" child sexually abusive material when he downloads such material from the Internet and "burns" it onto a CD. I would grant leave to appeal to determine (a) whether the more reasonable meaning of this language is to sanction persons who originate such material; (b) whether the Court of Appeals interpretation would e ssentially render nugator y the prohibition in MCL 750.145c(4) on the "posse ssion" of child sexually abusive materials because it would impose the same penalty on a person wh o downloads such mat erial as the person who actually entices the child to pose for the material; and (c) whether the Court of Appeals interpretation of "makes" has legal c onsequences in other digital contexts. For example, does a person who downloads a pirated movie "mak e" such a movie and would the person be subject to the same penalty as the person who originally pirated the movie? Does a person who down loads a pirated song "make" such a song and would the person be subject to the same penalty as the pers on who originally made available the song? Does a person who do wnloads a defamatory article from the Internet "m ake" such an_______________________________________ __ 2

article and would the person be subject to th e same penalty as the original publisher of

the defamation?

d1024 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 27, 2006

Clerk
98- 206.

#### Sasaki v. McKinnon.

Cuyahoga App. No. 71941. On motion for admission *pro hoc vice*of J. Andrew Heaton. Motion granted.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuantto Section 906**

 

In connection with the quarterly report ofOrchids Paper Products Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Keith R. Schroeder, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) andSection 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Keith R. Schroeder  |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Keith R. Schroeder      |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   | May 4,  2009       |

 

----
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAn adaptive human response mechanism controlling the V/STOL aircraft. Appendix 3: The adaptive control model of a pilot in V/STOL aircraft control loopsImportance of the role of human operator in control systems has led to the particular area of manual control theory. Human describing functions were developed to model human behavior for manual control studies to take advantage of the successful and safe human operations. A single variable approach is presented that can be extended for multi-variable tasks where a low order human response model is used together with its rules, to adapt the model on-line, being capable of responding to the changes in the controlled element dynamics. Basic control theory concepts are used to combine the model, constrained with the physical observations, particularly, for the case of aircraft control. Pilot experience is represented as the initial model parameters. An adaptive root-locus method is presented as the adaptation law of the model where the closed loop bandwidth of the system is to be preserved in a stable manner with the adjustments of the pilot handling qualities which relate the latter to the closed loop bandwidth and damping of the closed loop pilot aircraft combination. A Kalman filter parameter estimator is presented as the controlled element identifier of the adaptive model where any discrepancies of the open loop dynamics from the presented one, are sensed to be compensated.Document ID19900012461Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeThesis/DissertationAuthorsKucuk, Senol*(Pittsburgh Univ. Pittsburgh, PA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1988Subject CategoryResearch And Support Facilities (Air)Report/Patent NumberNASA-CR-186599NAS 1.26:186599Accession Number90N21777Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG3-729Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900012461.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### Wooley *vs.*Stone &c.

Chancery. Case 98.

Error to the Oa-rard Circuit; Bridges, Judge.

*Jurisdiction of Chancellor. Glioses in action. Execution. Nulla Bona. Statute.*

in'the'saU^of Chancellor h:.« no jurisdiction o' nr tl" *choses in action*n drbi r, nor ’o restrain him *303tás prop, rty until c m~ plairiant has obtained his~ judgment & had exno"ú.ins returned *nulla bona*

*302May 1.

Judge Undtrwood

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Wooley, holding notes upon S. Stone, before he obtained judgments upon them and had executions returned *nulla bona,*filed a bill against Stone for the purpose of restraining him from making fraudulent transfers of his property and *chosesin action.*Lackey, a defendant, owed Stone for land, and one object of the bill was to subject the debt due by Lackey to Stone.

We are of opinion that the chancellor had no jurisdiction of tue matters contained in the bill, until Wooley had obtained his judgments, and had executions returned *nulla bona;*and therefore the whole proceeding until the supplemental bill was filed, set-f1¡)g 0llt the judgments, executions and returns of *303*'nulla*bona,'should be regarded as *coram non jwdicé.*M. Fenan vs Jones and Crutcher, II. Litt 219.

*Anderson,*for plaintiff; Owsley, for defendant.

Before the supplemental bill was filed, Wooley had settled the amount of debt due by him to .Stone, and therefore there is no ground for a decree against him.' We do not perceive how we can with safety decree in favor of VV oolev upon the record as it now stands, against any of the other defendants. The testimony of their participation in the imputed frauds, with a view to defeat the payment of the debts of Wooley, is insufficient to counteract their positive denial. The lien upon the land, asserted against Lackey, cannot be sustained for the same *reason. Wherefore, the decree*is affirmed.
#### Raymond Seakan, Respondent, v. Joseph T. Hajec, Individually, and as President of Mechanical Man Car Wash Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al., Appellants.

Orders unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: *695The record in this appeal inexorably impels one to the conclusion that unless the rights of the parties are quickly determined financial disaster for both parties will be the end result of this litigation. This corporation does not have the financial sinew to survive a protracted legal encounter. Both the respondent Seakan and appellant Hajec are at such odds that the resolution of their differences can be had only by court decision; surely not by the parties. In this posture Special Term properly determined that a receiver should be appointed as conservator of the assets. Prudently, the court vested authority in the receiver to continue the employment of both principals in the daily operation of the business of the corporation. Upon argument counsel for all parties indicated a desire to proceed to trial of the issues at the earliest possible date. To this end we direct that a preference be given this case so that a full trial may be had as early as possible. Any party who obstructs the prompt holding of a plenary trial may well demonstrate his insecurity and serious doubts about the merits of his position. The receiver’s tenure in office can be short, indeed, if in good faith both parties desire an early determination of the merits. Special Term correctly denied the giving of security demanded by defendant. The need for security, too, will be quite academic if the parties proceed with all speed to the trial of the issues and a final result after all of the facts have been fully presented. (Appeal from orders of Oneida Special Term appointing a receiver and denying motion for deposit of security for expenses.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Marsh, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 246
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 246 appear at 76 FR 35097, June 16, 2011.

§ 246.8 Nondiscrimination. ( a ) *Civil rights requirements.* The State agency shall comply with the requirements of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Department of Agriculture regulations on nondiscrimination (7 CFR parts 15, 15a and 15b), and FNS instructions to ensure that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, age, sex or handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under the Program. Compliance with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and regulations and instructions issued thereunder shall include, but not be limited to: ( 1 ) Notification to the public of the nondiscrimination policy and complaint rights of participants and potentially eligible persons;
( 2 ) Review and monitoring activity to ensure Program compliance with the nondiscrimination laws and regulations;
( 3 ) Collection and reporting of racial and ethnic participation data as required by title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in federally assisted programs on the basis of race, color, or national origin; and
( 4 ) Establishment of grievance procedures for handling complaints based on sex and handicap.
( b ) *Complaints.* Persons seeking to file discrimination complaints should write to USDA, Director, Office of Adjudication and Compliance, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). All complaints received by State or local agencies which allege discrimination based on race, color, national origin, or age shall be referred to the Secretary of Agriculture or Director, Office of Equal Opportunity. A State or local agency may process complaints which allege discrimination based on sex or handicap if grievance procedures are in place.
( c ) *Non-English materials.* Where a significant number or proportion of the population eligible to be served needs service or information in a language other than English in order effectively to be informed of or to participate in the Program, the State agency shall take reasonable steps considering the size and concentration of such population, to provide information in appropriate languages to such persons. This requirement applies with regard to required Program information except certification forms which are used only by local agency staff. The State agency shall also ensure that all rights and responsibilities listed on the certification form are read to these applicants in the appropriate language.
[50 FR 6121, Feb. 13, 1985, as amended at 73 FR 11312, Mar. 3, 2008]
Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC   Document 3686-1   Filed 02/28/23   Page 1 of 9

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC   Document 3686-1   Filed 02/28/23   Page 2 of 9

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC   Document 3686-1   Filed 02/28/23   Page 3 of 9

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC   Document 3686-1   Filed 02/28/23   Page 4 of 9

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC   Document 3686-1   Filed 02/28/23   Page 5 of 9

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC   Document 3686-1   Filed 02/28/23   Page 6 of 9

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC   Document 3686-1   Filed 02/28/23   Page 7 of 9

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC   Document 3686-1   Filed 02/28/23   Page 8 of 9

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC   Document 3686-1   Filed 02/28/23   Page 9 of 9
#### § 1499.15 Noncompliance with an agreement.

If a recipient fails to comply with a Federal statute or regulation or the terms and conditions of the agreement, and CCC determines that the noncompliance cannot be remedied by imposing additional conditions, CCC may take one or more of the actions set forth in 2 CFR 200.339 and, if appropriate, initiate a claim against the recipient. CCC may also initiate a claim against a recipient if the donated commodities are damaged or lost, or the sale proceeds, goods received through barter, CCC-provided funds, interest, or program income are misused or lost, due to an action or omission of the recipient.

[81 FR 62605, Sept. 12, 2016, as amended at 87 FR 53368, Aug. 31, 2022]
Exhibit 32.2


Certification Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)


In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Noble Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2015 (the “Report”), I, Kenneth M. Fisher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:


|    |                                                                                                                                                
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | 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.

Date:August 3, 2015/s/ Kenneth M. FisherKenneth M. FisherChief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18            USC, SECTION 1350,**

**AS            ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with the quarterly report of Northern Ethanol, Inc. (the            “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, 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: November 13, 2007 | s/Gordon                            Laschinger____________________

Gordon Laschinger, Chief Executive Officer |
|--------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF lfEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

MOUNTAIN AIR CARGO, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. 2014-0111 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

CASE NO. 2013E680043 

Hon . .1. E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

JOINT STIPULATION AND OROER 

RECEIVED 

SEP - 8 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

Complainant, the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"). and Respondent. Mountain 

Air Cargo, Inc. (hereinafter '"Mountain Air Cargo'"), by and between counsel, hereby stipulate 

and agree to extend the deadline tiJr the FAA's Reply to Respondent's Supplemental Brief from 

September 4, 2014. to and including September 30.2014. The extension is agreed to allow the 

parties sutllcient time to discuss a full and tina! resolution of this Civil Penalty Action Case No. 

2013E680043. 

Dated: September 2. 20 I 4 

FEDERAL AVIATION 

ADivUNISTRATION 

By: ~J~ i'vi1#~M. Berman 

Regional Counse.J's Onice 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica. NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3258 

r AX: 718-995-5699 

Mr. ivlark .1\. Dombro!T 

tvls. Er.in E. Slusser 

1676 Intemational Drive, PH 

McLean. VA 22102 

TEL: 703-336-8700 

FAX: 703-336-8750 
SO-ORDERED 

Dated: -------' 2014 

Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

2 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the;l"1 Day of September, 2014 the original plus one copy was sent via 

First Class U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid to the following: 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 

and 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Joint Stipulation and Order was sent via First Class 

U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid and by facsimile to: 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

3
#### § 1788.5 RUS endorsement required.

In the case of a cooperative or mutual organization, RUS requires that the following:

Endorsement Waiving Immunity From Tort Liability” be included as a part of each public liability, owned, non-owned, hired automobile, and aircraft liability, employers' liability policy, and boiler policy:

The Insurer agrees with the Rural Utilities Service that such insurance as is afforded by the policy applies subject to the following provisions:

1. The Insurer agrees that it will not use, either in the adjustment of claims or in the defense of suits against the Insured, the immunity of the Insured from tort liability, unless requested by the Insured to interpose such defense.

2. The Insured agrees that the waiver of the defense of immunity shall not subject the Insurer to liability of any portion of a claim, verdict or judgment in excess of the limits of liability stated in the policy.

3. The Insurer agrees that if the Insured is relieved of liability because of its immunity, either by interposition of such defense at the request of the Insured or by voluntary action of a court, the insurance applicable to the injuries on which such suit is based, to the extent to which it would otherwise have been available to the Insured, shall apply to officers and employees of the Insured in their capacity as such; provided that all defenses other than immunity from tort liability which would be available to the Insurer but for said immunity in suits against the Insured or against the Insurer under the policy shall be available to the Insurer with respect to such officers and employees in suits against such officers and employees or against the Insurer under the policy.