alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert Baskerville, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 21, 1968, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and other crimes, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. While it is error to permit a witness to testify as to his prior identification of a defendant toy means of photographs *(People*v. *Caserta,*19 N Y 2d 18), and references by the District Attorney and the court to such testimony as well as the admission into evidence of the photographs themselves were improper (see, e.g., *People*v. *Hunnicutt,*15 A D *5562d 536; see, also, *People*v. *Jennings,*23 A D 2d 621), these errors do not, in our judgment, necessitate a new trial. The evidence of the complaining witnesses as to identification was positive and convincing. They had defendant under observation for periods ranging up to two minutes in a well-lighted store. They were in very close proximity to him and able to observe his face. In addition, both witnesses were able to supply the police with detailed and apparently accurate descriptions of the perpetrator of the robbery. Under such circumstances, the other evidence of identification being strong and clear, the errors should be disregarded *(People*v. *Milburn,*19 N Y 2d 910; Code Crim. Pro., § 542). As should be evident from the foregoing disposition, we also find that the witness Callan’s in-court identification was not tainted by the pretrial police station show-up. Nor do we find any violation of defendant’s right to due process in the conduct of the initial photographic identification procedure (see *Simmons*V. *United States,*390 U. S. 377). We have examined defendant’s other specifications of error and find them to be without merit (see, e.g., *People*v. *Roden,*21 N Y 2d 810). Christ, Acting P. J., Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur; Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and grant a new trial, with the following memorandum: The pretrial identification of defendant by the witnesses at the trial occurred after the effective date of the decisions in *United States*v. *Wade*(388 U. S. 218) and *Stovall*v. *Denno*(388 U. S. 293). Because counsel for defendant was not present at the critical stage of the confrontation for the purpose of identification, the evidence of thé identification was tainted and inadmissible. Whether the error was of such constitutional dimension that a new trial is mandatory *(Chapman*v. *California,*386 U. S. 18, 23) is unnecessary to decide. We are of the opinion that even under the more rigorous test of harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt *{id.,*p. 24) the conviction is vulnerable, for we cannot say that the evidence did not contribute to the verdict. Moreover, we are of the opinion that the testimony of the witness Callan as to the identification of defendant by photographs was erroneously received *(People*v. *Cioffi,*1 N Y 2d 70; *People*v. *Hagedorny,*272 App. Div. 830). This error, coupled with the infraction of defendant’s rights at the confrontation, . requires a new trial.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 70004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28758]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 12, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Glenda Wilson, Community 
Affairs Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
    1. M&P Community Bancshares, Inc. 401(k) Employee Stock Ownership 
Plan, Newport, Arkansas; to acquire additional voting shares, for a 
total of 32.07 percent, of M&P Community Bancshares, Inc., and thereby 
indirectly acquire additional voting shares of Merchants and Planters 
Bank, both of Newport, Arkansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 10, 
2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-28758 Filed 11-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
§ 1774.13 Limitations. Grant funds may not be used to: ( a ) Fund political or lobbying activities.
( b ) Pay for work already completed.
( c ) Purchase real estate or vehicles, improve or renovate office space, or repair and maintain privately owned property.
( d ) Construct or furnish a building.
( e ) Intervene in the Federal regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings.
( f ) Sue the Federal Government or any other government entities.
( g ) Pay for any other costs that are not allowable under 2 CFR part 200, as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 400.
( h ) Make contributions or donations to others.
( i ) Fund projects that duplicate technical assistance given to implement action plans under the National Forest-Dependent Rural Communities Economic Diversification Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6613). Applicants cannot receive both grants made under this part and grants that the Forest Service makes to implement the action plans for five continuous years from the date of grant approval by the Forest Service.
( j ) To pay an outstanding judgment obtained by the United States in a Federal Court (other than in the United States Tax Court), which has been recorded. An applicant will be ineligible to receive a loan or grant until the judgment is paid in full or otherwise satisfied.
[75 FR 35963, June 24, 2010, as amended at 79 FR 76005, Dec. 19, 2014]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsImplementation of the Recommendations of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger AccidentThis final status report describes the actions taken by NASA in response to the recommendations of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident (Mission 51-L). The Commission recommendations and NASA's responses to them are summarized in the Executive Summary, which is accompanied by a schedule showing significant program milestones. A detailed discussion of the activities undertaken by NASA to implement each of the nine Commission recommendations is included and other related NASA actions required for safe return to flight are discussed. A copy of the interim plan submitted to the President one year ago and other significant reference documents are included as appendixes.Document ID19930010801Acquisition SourceHeadquartersDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJune 1, 1987Subject CategorySpace TransportationReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-108646NAS 1.15:108646Accession Number93N19990Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19930010801.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
RadTek, Inc. Files Form 8-K to Announce Name Change; Trading
Symbol Changes from UCHN to RDTK, Looking to the Future


Louisville, Kentucky--(Macreport Media)—April 12, 2013—RadTek,
Inc. (OTCQB: RDTK), a radiation imaging equipment and system integration engineering based security and safety equipment technology
company, today announces the change of the Company’s official trading symbol from UCHN to RDTK. RadTek, Inc. (RadTek) is
a majority owned corporation of RadTek Co., Ltd of Daejeon, South Korea.


On April 10, 2013, the trading symbol for
the Company's common stock, which is quoted on the OTCQB/ OTC Bulletin Board, was changed from UCHN to RDTK.  This change
was made in conjunction with the Company's filing of a Certificate of Amendment to its Articles of Incorporation, on March 18,
2013, changing the Company's name from USChina Taiwan to RadTek, Inc.


Looking towards the future, RadTek will work with corporate partners,
alliances with government related organizations and Management of the Company that are industry experts in System Integration Engineering
for Security & Safety based Computer related hardware and software as well as Radiation Imaging Equipment, handheld & larger
mobile real time x-ray imaging products, radiation protection room design and construction, food inspection equipment and software
designers to create a significant niche in the industry.


 


About RadTek, Inc. (www.RadTekInc.com)


RadTek, Inc. a radiation imaging equipment and system integration
engineering based security and safety equipment technology company, formerly known as USChina Taiwan, was founded in 2009 and is
a publicly traded Nevada Corporation traded on the OTCQB under the ticker RDTK.


 


About RadTek Co., Ltd. (www.radtek.co.kr)


Founded in 2001, RadTek Co., Ltd of South Korea evolved from being
a Radiation technology manufacturing firm to a more focused security & safety and total radiation technology company. RadTek
has created a conglomeration of technology products to include mobile, handheld and industrial applications of radiation inspection,
as well as a total solution provider for security and food safety application products. RadTek Co., Ltd intends to expand their
operations to the US in the near future. RadTek Co., Ltd. will bring key strategic alliances with government related companies
and institutes such as Korea Telecom Express, Korea Customs Service, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, Korea Advanced Institute
of Science and Technology as well as other potential partners in establishing their system integration engineering and radiation
technology based product lines in the US.




Contact:


JD Sparks


US Communications Director


jdsparks@pegbusiness.com


502-657-6005
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6699-6700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2877]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Notice of Meeting for the Denali National Park and Preserve 
Aircraft Overflights Advisory Council Within the Alaska Region

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) announces a meeting of the 
Denali National Park and Preserve Aircraft Overflights Advisory 
Council. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss mitigation of 
impacts from aircraft overflights at Denali National Park and Preserve. 
This meeting is open to the public and will have time allocated for 
public testimony. The public is welcome to present written or oral 
comments. The meeting will be recorded and a summary will be available 
upon request from the Superintendent for public inspection 
approximately six weeks after each meeting. The Aircraft Overflights 
Advisory Council is authorized to operate in accordance with the 
provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

DATES: The Denali National Park and Preserve Aircraft Overflights 
Advisory Council meeting will be held on Thursday, February 25, 2010, 
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Alaska Standard Time. The meeting may end early 
if all business is completed.
    Location: Best Western Lake Lucille Inn, Iditarod Room, 1300 West 
Lake Lucille Drive, Wasilla, Alaska 99654. Telephone: (907) 373-1776.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Miriam Valentine, Denali Planning. E-
mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#96dbffe4fff7fbc9c0f7faf3f8e2fff8f3d6f8e6e5b8f1f9e0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1f52766d767e7240497e737a716b76717a5f716f6c31787069">[email protected]</span></a>. Telephone: (907) 733-9102 at Denali

[[Page 6700]]

National Park, Talkeetna Ranger Station, PO Box 588, Talkeetna, AK 
99676. For accessibility requirements please call Miriam Valentine 
(907) 733-9102.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meeting location and dates may need to be 
changed based on weather or local circumstances. If the meeting dates 
and location are changed, notice of the new meeting will be announced 
on local radio stations and published in local newspapers.
    The agenda for the meeting will include the following, subject to 
minor adjustments:

1. Call to order
2. Roll Call and Confirmation of Quorum
3. Chair's Welcome and Introductions
4. Review and Approve Agenda
5. Member Reports
6. Agency and Public Comments
7. Superintendent and NPS Staff Reports
8. Agency and Public Comments
9. Other New Business
10. Agency and Public Comments
11. Set time and place of next Advisory Council meeting
12. Adjournment

Sue E. Masica,
Regional Director, Alaska Region.
[FR Doc. 2010-2877 Filed 2-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 1739.10 Eligible applicant. To be eligible for a Community Connect competitive grant, the applicant must: ( a ) Be legally organized as an incorporated organization, an Indian tribe or tribal organization, as defined in 25 U.S.C. 450b(e), a state or local unit of government, or other legal entity, including cooperatives or private corporations or limited liability companies organized on a for-profit or not-for-profit basis.
( b ) Have the legal capacity and authority to own and operate the broadband facilities as proposed in its application, to enter into contracts and to otherwise comply with applicable federal statutes and regulations.
( c ) Register in the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly Central Contractor Registry (CCR)). ( 1 ) At the time of application, whether applying electronically or by paper, each applicant must have a Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) and an active registration in SAM before submitting its application in accordance with 2 CFR part 25. Instructions for obtaining the UEI are available at *https://sam.gov/ .*
( 2 ) The SAM registration must remain active, with current information, at all times during which an entity has an application under consideration by an agency or has an active Federal Award. To remain registered in the SAM database after the initial registration, the applicant is required to review and update, on an annual basis from the date of initial registration or subsequent updates, its information in the SAM database to ensure it is current, accurate and complete.
[78 FR 25791, June 3, 2013, as amended at 89 FR 34958, May 1, 2024]
Editorial Note on Part 1962
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1962 appear at 80 FR 9902, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1962.18 Unapproved disposition of chattel security. ( a ) *General.* When the County Supervisor learns that a borrower has made a disposition of chattel security in a manner not provided for on the applicable Agency form or becomes aware of the misuse of proceeds by a borrower, corrective action must be taken to protect the Government's interest.
( b ) *Notice to borrowers.* When a borrower has not properly accounted for the use of proceeds from the sale of chattel security, the County Supervisor must request restitution by use of a letter similar to Guide Letter 1962-A-5. ( 1 ) If the borrower makes restitution or provides sufficient information to enable the County Supervisor to post-approve the transaction on the applicable Agency form, no further action will be taken against the borrower. Post-approval can only be given under the conditions set out in 1962.17(b) of this subpart. Only one such transgression can be allowed in any period covered by the RD 431-2, or other similar plan of operation acceptable to Rural Development, between annual security inspections, whichever is appropriate, and this must be made clear to the borrower.
( 2 ) If the borrower does not make restitution, if the County Supervisor cannot post-approve the transaction, or if the borrower makes a second unauthorized disposition of security or a misuse of proceeds after settling the first offense as provided in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the County Supervisor will proceed in accordance with § 1962.49 of this subpart.
[54 FR 14791, Apr. 13, 1989]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1980

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1980 appear at 80 FR 9905, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1980.499 [Reserved]
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Roy A. Green, Appellant, v. Edward M. Fay, as Warden of Green Haven Prison, Respondent.

— Judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated October 20, 1964, reversed, on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the court below for the purpose of: (1) holding a further hearing; (2) assigning counsel to represent relator on such hearing; and (3) making a determination *de novo*on the basis of the proof adduced upon such hearing. No questions of fact were considered. It was error to deny relator’s request that counsel be appointed to represent him and to dismiss the writ without granting that request *(People ex rel. Slade*v. *Follette,*26 A D 2d 823; *People ex rel. Rodriguez*v. *La Vallee,*26 A D 2d 8; cf. *People ex rel. Rogers*v. *Stanley,*17 N Y 2d 256; *People*v. *Monahan,*17 N Y 2d 310). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Frances Zaimoff, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Aulisi, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualifying claimant from benefits on the ground that she did not comply with provisions of the Labor Law and Regulations of the Industrial Commissioner for the filing of a claim, registration and reporting (Labor Law, § 590, subds. 1, 8; § 596; 12 NYCRR 473.1). Claimant, a bookeeper, was unemployed from January 3, 1966 to January 13, 1966, during the period of the transit strike in New York City. She reported to her regular employment when the stoppage terminated on January 14, 1966. Believing that her employer would pay her for the time she lost, she did not file a claim until February 4, 1966 at which time she was advised her employer had no such intention. Failure to comply with the statute and regulations may be excused upon satisfying the Commissioner that there was good cause for such noncompliance. Here claimant’s explanation of her failure to file or even to appear or inquire at the local unemployment. insurance office two or three blocks from her home created a factual issue for the board’s evaluation and we believe that there is substantial evidence to sustain its determination. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in a memorandum decision by Aulisi, J.
OMB Control No. 2060
- 0347

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to range up to 40 minutes per response. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden est imates, and any suggested me thods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Wash ington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this address. EPA Form 5900
- 89 

### STATEMENT OF ENERGY PERFORMANCE Add Facility Name Here For 12 m onth period ending: Month/Day/Year
Facility Address Owner's A ddress Corporate Energy Manager Contact Facility Nam e Owner's Nam e Contact Name Street Address Street Address Email Address Address 2 Address 2 Phone Number City , State City, State 60565 ZIP Cement Plant EPI Result Energy Performance Score: 

### 99
Professional Verification Professional Engineer Name Address Address 2 City , State ZIP Phone Number: Licensed Number: Licensing State: EPI Verification

NOTE:

For US EPA Use Only : 3. An energy performance score of 75 is the minimum required rating to be considered eligible for the ENERGY STAR. Professional Engineer Stamp Based on the conditions observed at the time of my visit to this facility, I certify that the information used in this tool to generate the energy performance score represented on this statement is accurate.

1. Applications for recognition of plant energy performance to the US EPA must be made within 4 months of Period Ending date. Award of the ENERGY STAR is not final until approved by the US EPA. 2. All EPI scores and supporting data must first be verified by the US EPA or a US EPA-designated EPI reviewer if supporting data is considered to be confidential business information (CBI) before submitting applications for the ENERGY STAR. 

### EPIattached for E PA review

. 

### EPI contains confidential business inform ation and has been sent to the designated review

er.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**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 for the quarter ended March 31, 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:  May 16, 2008 | s/Richard Smith_______________________

Richard Smith, Chief Financial Officer |
|----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
###### Editorial Note on Part 1948

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1948 appear at 80 FR 9888, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1948.73-1948.77 [Reserved]