alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 1944
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1944.525 Targeting of TSA funds to States. ( a ) The Administrator will determine, based on the most current available information (generally that information used to determine the allocation to States of Rural Development housing loan funds), those States with the highest degree of substandard housing and persons in poverty in rural areas eligible to receive Rural Development housing assistance. The Administrator will distribute a portion of the available funds for TSA to these States, leaving the balance available for national competition.
( b ) The Administrator will provide annual notice through a published Notice on the distribution of appropriated TSA funds, the number of preapplications to be submitted to the National Office from the State Offices, and the maximum grant amount per project.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certificationof Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906**

 

Inconnection with the quarterly report of Orchids Paper Products Company (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, KeithR. Schroeder, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best ofmy knowledge, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of 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 |
|   | August 13, 2009    |

 

1

----
|  | (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 theCompany. |
|--|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                    |   |   |                               |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:      May 17, 2009 |   |   | /s/      Yale Farar                |   |
|                    |   |   | Yale      Farar, President         |   |
|                    |   |   | (Principal      Executive Officer) |   |

|                    |   |   |                                              |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:      May 17, 2009 |   |   | /s/      Mitchell W. Turk                         |   |
|                    |   |   | Mitchell      W. Turk, Chief Financial Officer    |   |
|                    |   |   | (Principal      Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |

----
Exhibit 21.1
  LIST OF
    SUBSIDIARIES
    COMPANIES ORGANIZED IN THE UNITED STATES:EPE Holding Corporation

Delaware


100
%Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc.

Tennessee


85
%Elvis Presley Enterprises LLC

Delaware


85
%Elvis Presleys Memphis LLC

Tennessee


85
%Elvis Anthology, LLC

Tennessee


85
%Elvis Viva LLC

Delaware


85
%Meadow Oaks Apartments, Inc.

Tennessee


85
%Elvis Presleys Heartbreak Hotel, LLC

Tennessee


85
%EPE LV, LLC

Delaware


85
%Cirque EPE Partnership

Nevada


42.5
%Cirque EPE Las Vegas LLC

Nevada


42.5
%Memphis Graceland RV Park & Campground LLC

Tennessee


85
%Craft Manor Apartments Inc.

Tennessee


85
%Elvis Music, Inc.

New York


63.75
%White Haven Music, Inc.

New York


63.75
%Velvet Elvis, Inc.

Tennessee


85
%Erama Resolution Corp.

Delaware


85
%19 Entertainment Inc.

New York


100
%On The Road Productions

California


100
%All Girl Productions

California


100
%19 Touring LLC

Delaware


100
%Dance Nation Productions Inc.

Delaware


100
%Southside Productions Inc.

Delaware


100
%19 Recording Services Inc.

Delaware


100
%19 Recordings, Inc.

New York


100
%J2K Productions, Inc.

California


100
%CTA Productions, Inc.

Delaware


100
%Masters of Dance Productions Inc.

Delaware


100
%SYTYCD DVD Productions, Inc.

Delaware


100
%19 Entertainment Worldwide, LLC

Delaware


100
%IICD, LLC

Delaware


100
%Liverpool Productions LLC

Delaware


50
%Big Red 2 Entertainment LLC

Delaware


50
%This Land Productions, Inc.

Delaware


100
%Morra, Brezner, Steinberg & Tennenbaum Entertainment,
    Inc.

California


100
%Focus Enterprises, Inc.

California


100
%Uncle Daves Boondoggle, Inc.

California


100
%Step Teco, Inc.

California


100
%CKX G.O.A.T. Holding Corp.

Delaware


100
%G.O.A.T., Inc.

Virginia


100
%Muhammad Ali Enterprises LLC

California


80
%Muhammad Ali Images, Inc.

New York


80
%Ali.com, LLC

Delaware


80
% 103




---



##### 



COMPANIES REGISTERED IN ENGLAND AND WALES:CKX UK Holdings Limited




100
%19 Entertainment Limited




100
%19 Productions Limited




100
%19 Touring Limited




100
%19 Recordings Limited




100
%19 Brands Limited




100
%19 Merchandising Limited




100
%Freedom Media Limited




100
%Freedom TV Limited




100
%19 TV Limited




100
%19 Management Limited




100
%Native Management Limited




100
%Double Vision Film Limited




100
%19 Loves Music Limited




100
%19 Artist Tours Limited




100
%Native Songs Limited




100
%Brilliant 19 Limited




75
%Shy Records Limited




75
%TLS Management Limited




50
%Ambush Management Limited




50
%Delirious Recordings Limited




25
%Popworld Limited




10
%Storm Model Management Ltd.




51
%Storm Artists Management Ltd.




51
%ChannelBee Limited




50
%19 Fashionair Limited




50
%COMPANIES REGISTERED IN GERMANY:19 Entertainment (Germany) GmbH




100
%19 Touring GmbH




100
%COMPANIES REGISTERED IN SOUTH AFRICA:Storm Model Management (Pty) Limited




34.17
%  104
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

DAVID A. SANDBERG, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D21-1555

LT Case No. 2013-CF-003335-A-O

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed June 14, 2022

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Orange County, 

Mark S. Blechman, Judge.

F. Wesley Blankner, Jr., of Ali & Blankner,

Orlando, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, and L. Charlene Matthews,

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

COHEN, HARRIS and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Gladstone Investment Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies on the
date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2015 (Form 10-Q), filed
concurrently herewith by the Company, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 4, 2015



|                                  
|----------------------------------
|/s/ David Gladstone               
|David Gladstone                   
|Chief Executive Officer and       
|Chairman of the Board of Directors
### Salinity in the Colorado River in the Grand Valley, western Colorado, 1994-95

By: David L. ButlerPaul B. von Guerard

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/fs21596

#### Links

- More information:  **Publisher Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1837 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1837

 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify that fill 
                 material cannot be comprised of waste.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 6, 2013

   Mr. Pallone (for himself, Mr. Reichert, Mr. Yarmuth, Ms. Linda T. 
   Sanchez of California, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Holt, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. 
  Conyers, Mr. Capuano, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. 
Fitzpatrick, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Honda, Mr. Moran, 
 Mr. Price of North Carolina, Ms. Norton, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Rangel, Ms. 
 Edwards, Mr. Himes, Ms. Pingree of Maine, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. 
Scott of Virginia, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Cummings, Ms. Tsongas, 
 Mr. Nadler, Ms. Chu, Mr. Deutch, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Ellison, 
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Polis, 
Mr. Michaud, Mr. Grayson, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. McDermott, Mr. 
Hastings of Florida, Ms. Eshoo, and Mr. Cohen) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify that fill 
                 material cannot be comprised of waste.

    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 ``Clean Water Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF FILL MATERIAL.

    Section 502 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
1362) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(26) Fill material.--The term `fill material' means any 
        pollutant which replaces portions of the waters of the United 
        States with dry land or which changes the bottom elevation of a 
        water body for any purpose. The term does not include any 
        pollutant discharged into the water primarily to dispose of 
        waste.''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit      32.1**

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

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

| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                 |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Yale                Farar                                   |   |   |   |
| Yale                Farar                                            |   |   |        |
| President                (Principal Executive Officer)August 9, 2006 |   |   |        |

|                                                                    |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Mitchell                  W. Turk                              |   |   |   |
| Mitchell                  W. Turk                                       |   |   |        |
| Chief                  Financial                  OfficerAugust 9, 2006 |   |   |   |

----
#### Shao Fen Chin, Petitioner, v Hilda G. Schwartz et al., Respon*552dents, et al., Defendant.

— Application for an order, pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously denied, the cross motions granted and the petition dismissed, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur— Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Ross and Lynch, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Alvin L. Bucksbaum, Respondent, v County of Nassau et al., Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to compel the payment to petitioner of the monetary value of his accumulated sick leave, the appeals are from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered June 29, 1979, which granted the petition, and directed appellants to pay petitioner the sum of $8,472.36 for accumulated sick leave and to pay to the New York State Retirement System the appropriate monetary contribution arising from and measured by petitioner’s accumulated sick leave, and (2) an order of the same court, dated September 12, 1979, which denied appellants’ motion which was, in effect, *870for reargument. Appeal from the order dismissed, without costs or disbursements. No appeal lies from an order denying a motion for reargument. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remitted to Special Term for a hearing in accordance herewith. The parties to the within proceeding entered into a stipulation before Special Term regarding all of the essential facts, except that it was explicitly stated that they could not agree upon the exact number of sick days which had been accumulated by the petitioner. In addition, the appellants in their answer specifically denied that they had knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the accuracy of petitioner’s allegations concerning the number of accumulated sick days. Under these circumstances, and despite the fact that petitioner submitted in support of his petition a certification by the Deputy Administrative Judge for the County Court of the number of accumulated sick days, we do not believe that the foregoing can be considered binding upon the appellants, who have never conceded the accuracy of that certification. Accordingly, a triable issue of fact was presented on the face of the pleadings before Special Term and the matter should not have been decided without a hearing (see CPLR 7804, subd [h]; *Matter of Bay Ridge Diagnostic & Analytical Lab. v Smith,*71 AD2d 889). Thus, the proceeding must be remitted for a hearing to determine the number of sick days, if any, which petitioner may have accumulated. We have considered appellants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Gibbons, J. P., Gulotta, Hargett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Frank L. Miller, for Reinstatement to the Bar.

Reference order as indicated in the order of this court. Pending receipt of the Referee’s report, determination of petitioner’s motion for reinstatement is held in abeyance. Concur—Birns, J. P., Sandler, Ross, Lupiano and Silverman, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1955

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1955 appear at 80 FR 9895, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1955.6-1955.8 [Reserved]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1955

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1955 appear at 80 FR 9895, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1955.73-1955.80 [Reserved]
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

2005-1789.

#### State ex rel. John Q. Public v. Etna Twp. Bd. of Trustees.

In Mandamus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus. Upon consideration of relator’s application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal is granted. Accordingly, this cause is dismissed.
No. 12573 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1973 

NICHOLAS JOHN DiGIALLONARDO, 

Petitioner, 

VS. 

DEAN S. BETZER, Sheriff of 

Yellowstone County, Montana, 

Respondent. 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: 

Counsel of Record: 

For Petitioner: 

Robert L. Stephens, Jr., Billings, Montana 

Submitted August 8, 1973 

Decided: NO\ 1 3973 
PER CURIAM: 

This is an original proceeding wherein petitioner seeks 

postconviction relief. He was convicted of first degree burglary by a jury in the district court of Yellowstone County. 

Charles F. Moses, attorney, was employed by petitioner 

and codefendant, Joseph DeGesualdo, to represent them. 

Petitioner's conviction and that of his codefendant was 

affirmed by this Court in State v. DiGiallonardo and DeGesualdo, 

- Mont . , 503 P.2d 43, 29 St.Rep. 918. On appeal we found 

that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

appellants' motion for continuance, that exhibits admitted were 

not products of an unlawful arrest and that there was sufficient 

corroborative testimony presented by the state to allow the use 

of the testimony of an accomplice. 

Petitioner in applying for postconviction relief under 

section 95-2601, R.C.M. 1947, urges that he was denied effective 

counsel, that there was a material variance in the averments of 

the pleadings as to the facts proven denying petitioner his 

right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation 

as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the 

Constitution of the United States and that petitioner was denied 

his right to due process and to a fair trial as guaranteed by 

the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution 

of the United States. 

Petitioner also urges that this Court reconsider all of 

the issues that were raised on appeal. With respect to those 

issues we reaffirm our holding. 

The only issue properly raised by petitioner is that he 

was denied effective counsel. 

This Court knows of the competency of trial counsel and 

that same counsel handled the appeal. Defendant's choice of 
counsel cannot later be used as a guise for a new trial where 

no showing of actual ineffectiveness is made. Here we simply 

have a new counsel who would have done things differently and 

who would take every means to spring his client. 

The application is denied.
Editorial Note on Part 1944
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1944.673 Historic preservation and replacement housing requirements and procedures. ( a ) Rural Development has entered into a Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement (PMOA) with the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in order to implement the specific requirements regarding historic preservation contained in section 533 of the Housing Act of 1949, 42 U.S.C. 1490(m) of the enabling legislation. The PMOA, with attachments, can be found in RD Instruction 2000-FF (available in any Rural Development office). A copy of the PMOA will be provided to each applicant for a HPG as part of the preapplication package specified in paragraph II of exhibit C of this subpart (available in any Rural Development office).
( b ) Each applicant for an HPG grant will provide, as part of its preapplication documentation submitted to RHS, a description of its proposed process for assisting very low-and low-income persons owning historic properties needing rehabilitation, repair, or replacement. “Historic properties” are defined as properties that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Each HPG proposal shall comply with the provisions of Stipulation I, A-G of the PMOA (RD Instruction 2000-FF), available in any Rural Development State or District Office. Should RHS be required to assume responsibility for compliance with 36 CFR part 800 in accordance with Stipulation III of the PMOA, the grantee will assist RHS in preparing an environmental assessment. RHS will work with the grantee to develop alternative actions or mitigation measures, as appropriate.
( c ) Such assumption of responsibility by Rural Development on a particular property shall not preclude the grantee from carrying out the requirements of 36 CFR part 800 on other properties as though it were a Federal agency, but no work may be commenced on any unit or dwelling in controversy until and unless so advised by Rural Development.
[58 FR 21894, Apr. 26, 1993, as amended at 62 FR 26211, May 13, 1997]
800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

March 11, 2013 

Mr. Mark Perez de Tejada 

1102 White Oak Court 

Port Byron, IL 61275 

Dear Mr. Perez de Tejada: 

This is in response to your January 15, 2013, letter sent to the public docket 

(No. FAA-2013-0105) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to initiate 

rulemaking to restrict the age of part 135 pilots to a maximum of 65 years of age. 

In accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73, the FAA must use the following criteria when 

making a decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition 

for rulemaking: 

1) The immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise; 

2) The priority of other issues the FAA must deal with; and 

3) The resources we have available to address these issues. 

The FAA has a priority list for rulemaking that addresses many issues that are crucial to 

the safety of the aviation community and the traveling public. The FAA must prioritize 

its limited rulemaking resources so as to deliver the most value to the aviation system as a 

whole. After reviewing your request, we have determined that the issue you raise is not 

an immediate safety concern and would not be in the public interest. 

For the reasons above, we deny your petition for rulemaking in accordance with 

14 CFR § 11.73. However, should the FAA initiate a rulemaking project in the future on 

this subject your letter will be considered at that time. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Michael J. Zenkovich 

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards 

 Service
### State ofUtah GARY R. HERBERT Governor GREG BELL Lieutenant Governor

February 24, 2012 

### Department of Environmental Quality Amanda Smith Executive Director DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY Bryce C. Bird

Director

DAQP-O I0-12

Carl Oa\y, Air Program Director Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII 1595 Wyncoop Street Denver, Colorado 80202-1129 Dear Mr. Daly, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified a deficiency in 

### R307-401-15. Air Strippers and Soil Venting Projects that must be addressed prior to approval ofthe changes to this rule that were submitted on January 8, 1999. The rule contains pre-existing language that allows the executive secretary to approve alternate test or monitoring methods. The Utah Division ofAir Quality (UDAQ) is currently lIsing this discretion to require sources to use updated EPA test methods instead of the outdated methods specified in the rule. UDAQ commits to revise R307-401-15 to remove the executive secretary's discretion to approve alternate test or monitoring methods. Sincerely,
Bryce C. Bird, Executive Secretary Utah Air Quality Board

195 Nonh 1950 West· Salt Lake City , Utah Mailing Address : P.O
. Box 144820· Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4820 Telephone (801 ) 536 · 4000· Fax (801)536·4099· T.DD
. (801 ) 536-4414 www. deq. lI/ohgov Printed on 100 % recycled paper
No. 89-6083.

#### Davis *v.*Illinois.

App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.