alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 4888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01820]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID: DoD-2013-OS-0185]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, 
the following proposal for collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by March 3, 
2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Child Care Development 
Program (CDP)--Background Investigations and Program Requests; DD 2606 
and DD 2652; OMB Control Number 0704-XXXX.
    Type of Request: New Collection.
    Number of Respondents: 5,000.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 5,000.
    Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 833.
    Needs and Uses: The information from the DD 2606 is used to place 
applicants into programs or onto waiting lists for child development 
program services. It is also used to assist management in the 
determination in the effectiveness of present and projection of future 
program requirements. The information in DD 2652 is used to apply child 
care fee subsidies for families enrolled in the DoD CDP.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required To Obtain or Retain Benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra at the Office of 
Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive 
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the 
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD Information Management 
Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, 
VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: January 27, 2014.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2014-01820 Filed 1-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Chardan South China Acquisition
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30,
2006 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof, I Kerry Propper, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary of the
Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

      2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Kerry Propper                       Dated: November 20, 2006
-------------------------------------
Kerry Propper
Chief Executive Officer and Secretary
(Principal Executive Officer)
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 20

- 00529

- CV

IN RE MICAH MCKINNEY

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Beth Watkins , Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 27, 2021

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On November 2, 2020, r elator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. After considering the

petition, the response, the reply, and the record, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the

relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

.

52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 15606 , styled In the Matter of the Marriage of Leslie McKinney and Micah

McKinney and the Interest of D.O.M. and F.J.M., Children , pending in the 216th Judici al District Court

, Gillespie

County, Texas, the Honorable Albert D. Pattillo, III presiding.
#### Henry Daas et al., Respondents, v. Victor Daas et al., Appellants.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 24, 1966, modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting its third, fourth and fifth decretal paragraphs, and by substituting therefor a provision dismissing the complaint as to defendant Frederick A. Daas. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from by the respective appellants, with costs to respondents against appellant Victor Daas. Findings of fact contained or implicit in the trial court’s opinion-decision inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. In our opinion, the record supports the conclusion of the Trial Justice that appellant Victor Daas agreed to hold the bonds, which were the subject of an alleged gift to him by decedent, in “ protective custody ” and, accordingly, there was sufficient ground for the imposition of a constructive trust upon said appellant (cf. *Farano*v. *Stephanelli,*7 A D 2d 420; 1 Scott, Trusts [2d ed.], § 44.2). It is our further opinion, however, that there was no basis, either on the pleadings or the evidence adduced at the trial, for surcharging the executor, appellant Frederick A. Daas, personally, for any loss which may be sustained, as stated in the opinion below, “by reason of his *950failure to act,” or holding him personally liable for the expenses incurred as a result of this action. In view of the judgment as against appellant Victor Daas, which we are affirming, any remaining issue as to appellant Frederick A. Daas is academic. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### State Funding Corporation, Respondent, v. Twindale Homes, Inc., et al., Respondents, and Jacob Neuman, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Jacob Neuman, Appellant, v. General Electric Co., Inc., et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.)

Motion [No. 2447] by State Funding Corporation; the plaintiff in Action No. 1 and the defendant in Action No. 2, and by the Investors Collateral C:orp. and Veterans Funding Corp., defendants in Action No. 2, to dismiss the appeal as to them on the ground that the notice of appeal, although filed, was not served upon them; and on the further *ground*that the appeal relates to portions of an order in which they are not involved. Motion denied. [See Motion No. 2448, decided herewith.] Motion by the defendant-respondent Max Kaufman to dismiss the appeal for lack of prosecution denied. Cross motion [No. 2448] by appellant Jacob Neuman, pursuant to statute (CPLR 5520), to extend his time to serve a copy of the notice of appeal upon each of the three movants in Motion No. 2447, granted (see 8 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, p. 599). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 10.1**

 

CASTLECREEK FINANCIAL

 

July 29,2010

 

Paul W.Taylor

ExecutiveVice President and Chief Operating Officer

GuarantyBancorp

1331Seventeenth Street

Suite 300

Denver, CO80202-1566

 

Via email:paul.taylor@guarantybankco.com

 

Dear Paul:

 

Pursuant to Section 6 of theLetter Agreement between Centennial Bank Holdings, Inc., the predecessorto Guaranty Bancorp (‘Guaranty”), and Castle Creek Financial (“CCF”) dated November 8,2006, this letter will confirm that CCF is formally terminating the agreementpursuant to the terms of Section 6. Although the termination provision of the Letter Agreement stipulates 30days written notice, you agree that by executing and returning this letter,Guaranty hereby waives such 30 day notice provision, and that all otherprovisions as provided in Section 6 of the Letter Agreement shall survivepursuant to the terms therein.

 

Please confirm that the foregoing isin accordance with your understanding by signing and returning to us aduplicate of this letter, which thereupon shall constitute acceptance of CCF’stermination of its role as financial advisor to Guaranty.

 

Very truly yours,

 
| **Castle Creek Financial, LLC** |               | **Guaranty Bancorp** |
|---------------------------------|--------------------|----------------------|
|                            |               |                 |   |
|                            |               |                 |   |   |
| By:                             | /s/ William J. Ruh |                 | By: | /s/ Paul W. Taylor |
| Name:                           | Willam J. Ruh      |                 | Name: | Paul W. Taylor |
| Title:                          | Vice President     |                 | Title: | Executive Vice President and Chief  Operating Officer |

 

----
§ 2500.042 Cost sharing and matching. ( a ) *General.* Awardees may be required to match the Federal funds received under an OAO award. The required percentage of matching, type of matching (e.g., cash and/or in-kind contributions), sources of match (e.g., non-Federal), and whether OAO has any authority to waive the match will be specified in the subpart applicable to the specific Federal assistance program, as well as in the RFP.
( b ) *Indirect costs as in-kind matching contributions.* Indirect costs may be claimed under the Federal portion of the award budget. However, unless explicitly authorized in the RFP, indirect costs may not be claimed on both the Federal and nonfederal portion of the award budget.
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 38

 39

 40

★

▲▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/07

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL

★

■ ■

■

★

■ ■

■

■

★

● ●

●

★

● ●

●

●
#### §§ 205.407-205.499 [Reserved]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1951

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Some of the exhibits referenced in this part 1951 are not published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Exhibits are available in any Rural Development office.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1951 appear at 80 FR 9890-9894, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1951.900 OMB control number.

The information collection requirement obtained for this part is pending OMB approval at the time of this rule's publication in the Federal Register.

[81 FR 11032, Mar. 2, 2016]
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

STEPHEN HACKER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

3M COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

 

 Case No. 7:20cv131-MCR-GRJ

FINAL JUDGMENT

This action came before the Court for a jury trial with the Honorable M. Casey 

Rodgers presiding. The issues have been tried, resulting in a jury verdict in 

Plaintiff’s favor on April 30, 2021. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that final judgment is 

entered in favor of the Plaintiff, STEPHEN HACKER, and against Defendants, 3M 

COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC, 

AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO LLC, and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES 

LLC, in the amount of $2,260,000, together with costs taxed against Defendants. 

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS,

CLERK OF COURT

 May 2, 2021 /s/ 

DATE Deputy Clerk: Susan Simms

Case 7:20-cv-00131-MCR-GRJ Document 204 Filed 05/02/21 Page 1 of 1
#### John Vassallo, Appellant, v Texaco, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

— In an action to recover damages for wrongful discharge and conspiracy, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated March 28, 1978, which granted the motion of defendant Texaco, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it. This court, *sua sponte,*deems the notice of appeal herein to be a premature notice of appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 12, 1978, upon the aforesaid order. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Plaintiff’s action is predicated upon the contention that he was discharged by defendant Texaco, Inc., in violation of the terms of an employment contract and as a result of a conspiracy among Texaco and the other named defendants. With respect to his first cause of action, plaintiff contends that he received an oral commitment that his employment would continue "for an indefinite period of time” as long as his work remained satisfactory. However, an offer for employment for an indefinite period constitutes a hiring at will which can be terminated by *643either party without a showing of cause (see *Grozek v Ragu Foods,*63 AD2d 858; *Chase v United Hosp.,*60 AD2d 558; *Walford v British Caledonian Airways,*52 AD2d 922). Moreover, if this were not a hiring at will, the oral contract alleged by the plaintiff would be unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds since it could not be performed within one year (see *Zupan v Blumberg,*2 NY2d 547). In addition, assuming that plaintiffs second cause of action does not state simply a conspiracy to breach a contract but a separate tortious interference with his employment (see, e.g., *North Shore Bottling Co. v Schmidt & Sons,*22 NY2d 171), Special Term was nevertheless correct in finding on this record that there was no genuine issue of fact as to Texaco’s alleged complicity in such misconduct. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted to Texaco on both causes of action, and the judgment appealed from should be affirmed. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*

§ 1416.113 Milk losses due to H5N1. ( a ) Payments for milk losses due to H5N1 are based on a standard number of days of lost production and the expected production for an eligible adult dairy cow. The payment for milk losses due to H5N1 is equal to the payment rate per head specified in paragraph (b) of this section, multiplied by the number of eligible adult dairy cows specified in § 1416.109(g), multiplied by the producer's share of milk production from the eligible adult dairy cows, multiplied by the national payment rate specified in § 1416.109(d).
( b ) The payment rate per head varies by month and is equal to the expected milk production loss for an eligible adult dairy cow, as determined by FSA, multiplied by the all-milk price. The applicable payment rate will be determined by the month in which an eligible adult dairy cow was removed from milk production, as reported on the application. To determine the expected milk production loss for an eligible adult dairy cow, FSA will: ( 1 ) Determine the daily expected production by dividing the total expected production for 28 days of production, as determined by FSA based on a month-specific national production value obtained from NASS data, by 28 days; and
( 2 ) Calculate the sum of: ( i ) The result of paragraph (b)(1) of this section multiplied by 21 days, and
( ii ) The result of paragraph (b)(1) of this section multiplied by 7 days, multiplied by 50 percent.
( c ) Payments calculated in this section are subject to the adjustments and limits provided for in this part.
[89 FR 54335, July 1, 2024]
Exhibit 99.1


                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Real Estate  Fund
XV Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-KSB for the
period ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,  Robert
P.  Johnson,  President of AEI Fund Management  86-A,  Inc.,  the
Managing General Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to
18  U.S.C.  1350,  as  adopted pursuant to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     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 Partnership.


                              /s/Robert P Johnson
                                 Robert P. Johnson, President
                                 AEI Fund Management 86-A, Inc.
                                 Managing General Partner
                                 March 25, 2003
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

ex rel. ROBERT V. SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 3:20cv3678/MCR/EMT 

JAY A. ODOM; 

OKALOOSA COUNTY, 

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, 

Defendants. 

____________________________________ 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE

BY NATHANIEL H. HUNT 

Pursuant to Rule 11.1 of the Local Rules for this Court, Nathaniel H. Hunt 

respectfully moves for admission pro hac vice to this Court in order to represent 

Defendant Jay A. Odom in this matter. In support of this motion, Mr. Hunt states 

the following: 

1. Mr. Hunt is a member in good standing of the Colorado Bar and the 

Georgia Bar. Mr. Hunt is also a member of the Federal District Court for the District 

of Colorado; the United States Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and Tenth Circuits; 

and the U.S. District Courts for the Middle and Southern Districts of Georgia. A 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 19 Filed 01/28/21 Page 1 of 4
2 

Certificate of Good Standing from the Supreme Court of Colorado is attached to this 

motion. 

2. Mr. Hunt is a partner at the law firm of Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP 

and has been retained by Mr. Odom as co-counsel in this matter in addition to the 

counsel of record, Ben Gordon. 

3. Mr. Hunt has never been subject to disciplinary proceedings by any 

state or federal bar nor are there any pending disciplinary proceedings against him. 

4. Mr. Hunt has reviewed and is familiar with the Local Rules of this 

Court and has successfully completed the requisite online Attorney Admission 

Tutorial (Confirmation Number: FLND16118567624102). 

5. Mr. Hunt has reviewed and is familiar with the online CM/ECF 

Attorney User’s Guide provided by this Court and with the CM/ECF e-filing system. 

Mr. Hunt maintains an upgraded PACER account, through which he has submitted 

a request for pro hac vice admission, which has been approved. 

6. Mr. Hunt has paid the requisite pro hac vice fee at the time of filing of 

this motion. 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 19 Filed 01/28/21 Page 2 of 4
3 

Accordingly, Mr. Hunt respectfully requests permission to appear in this 

Court for this cause only. 

Dated: January 28, 2021 By: /s/ Nathaniel H. Hunt 

Nathaniel H. Hunt 

KAPLAN KIRSCH & ROCKWELL LLP 

1675 Broadway, Suite 2300 

Denver, CO 80202 

(303) 825-7000 

(303) 825-7005 Facsimile 

nhunt@kaplankirsch.com

Attorney for Jay A. Odom 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 19 Filed 01/28/21 Page 3 of 4
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Spansion Inc. (the
Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i.) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 26, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 5, 2011 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ John H. Kispert                  
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | John H. Kispert                      
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 68790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28276]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

[30 Day 11-0307]


Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and 
Recommendations; Correction

Notice: Correction

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a document 
in the Federal Register concerning an information collection request. 
The document contained two incorrect numbers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Walker, 404-639-5960.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of November 2, 2011, Volume 75, Number 211, 
in FR Doc. fr02no10-59 page 67366, under the agency name correct the 
last sentence in the Federal Register notice to read: The total annual 
burden is estimated to be 8,628, and in the burden table: Laboratory 
Form 2 to read 1,452 responses per respondent.

    Dated: November 3, 2010.
Carol Walker,
Acting Reports Clearance Officer, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2010-28276 Filed 11-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
###### Editorial Note on Part 1924

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1924 appear at 80 FR 9870, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1924.260 Handling manufactured housing (unit) construction complaints.

When a borrower who has purchased a manufactured home (or “unit”) complains about construction defects, the borrower will be instructed to first contact the dealer-contractor from whom the unit was purchased. Rural Development will assist the borrower in obtaining assistance through the dealer-contractor's and/or HUD's complaint resolution process. If the dealer-contractor cannot resolve the complaint, the borrower should contact the appropriate State Administrative Agency (SAA) or HUD. If the complaint resolution process does not result in the correction of the defect, the borrower's complaint will be handled in accordance with § 1924.259 of this subpart.
#### §§ 1752.8-1752.10 [Reserved]