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

#### Fryer’s Administrator *vs.*Fryer.

[Messrs. Morehead & Brown for plaintiff: no appearance for defendant.]

From the Circuit Court eor Pendleton County.

*November 3.*

The failure of a sheriff to return the value of property replevied, as required, by the 3d sec. of the act of 1830,isno cause for quashing the writ. That section applies only where a stranger to an ex’on replevies property taken under it, and is only directory to the officer for the security of the ex’on creditor— who may make She .officer ae*55countable for his failure to comply with the act.

*54Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This was an action of *replevin*for a slave, in which, on the calling of the cause in the Circuit Court, the Judge *quashed the writ,*and rendered judgment for a restitution of the slave, because the sheriff, who had executed the writ, had failed to assess the value, or to report the assessed value of the slave, as required by the third section of an act of assembly of 1830, (2 *Slat. Law,*1361.)

In rendering such a judgment; for such a cause, the Circuit Court, in our opinion, erred. The third section of the act of 1830, was designed to apply, as we think, only to an action of replevin by a stranger, for property taken under execution; and is, moreover, merely directory to the officer, for the security, chiefly, of the execution creditor, who may make the officer accountable for *55any damage which may arise from a refusal or failure to •comply with the direction of the statute.

But surely the single fact, that no assessment was made, or, if made, reported, should not, in any case, be a sufficient reason for quashing *the writ.*Had this action been for property taken under an execution against a stranger to the writ, we are by no means sure that even the official return should have been quashed. But even that much was improper in,this case, as the third section of the act does not apply to it.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-07-14T06:10:41-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
#### § 3555.106 [Reserved]
§ 301.55-4 Conditions governing the interstate movement of regulated articles from quarantined areas. Any regulated article may be moved interstate from a quarantined area[1] only if moved under the following conditions: ( a ) With a certificate or limited permit issued and attached in accordance with §§ 301.555 and 301.55-8;
( b ) Without a certificate or limited permit if: ( 1 ) The regulated article originated outside the quarantined area and is either moved in an enclosed vehicle or is completely enclosed by a covering (such as canvas, plastic, or closely woven cloth) adequate to prevent access by South American cactus moths while moving through the quarantined area; and
( 2 ) The point of origin of the regulated article is indicated on the waybill, and the enclosed vehicle or the enclosure that contains the regulated article is not opened, unpacked, or unloaded in the quarantined area; and
( 3 ) The regulated article is moved through the quarantined area without stopping except for refueling or for traffic conditions, such as traffic lights or stop signs.
( c ) Without a certificate or limited permit if the regulated articles are cactus pads and fruits for consumption from outside the quarantined area that are being moved in accordance with the protocols described in a compliance agreement (see § 301.55-6(a)) to a commercial food warehouse or distribution center within the quarantined area and the regulated articles remain enclosed by a covering (such as canvas, plastic, or closely woven cloth) adequate to prevent access by South American cactus moths while within the quarantined area: and
( d ) Without a certificate or limited permit if the regulated article is moved: ( 1 ) By the United States Department of Agriculture for experimental or scientific purposes;
( 2 ) Pursuant to a departmental permit issued by the Administrator for the regulated article;
( 3 ) Under conditions specified on the departmental permit and found by the Administrator to be adequate to prevent the spread of the South American cactus moth; and
( 4 ) With a tag or label bearing the number of the departmental permit issued for the regulated article attached to the outside of the container of the regulated article or attached to the regulated article itself if not in a container.
[74 FR 27073, June 8, 2009, as amended at 87 FR 80008, Dec. 29, 2022] Footnotes -
301.55-4
[1] Requirements under all other applicable Federal domestic plant quarantines and regulations must also be met.
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Annual reportto Congress and performance plan [electronic resource]**
 
SuDoc:D 1.1/15:
ItemNumber:0306-A-37(online)
CGPsystem Number: 000576595
 
2000
2001
2002
2006
2013
2014
#### Rudy Wiedoeft, defendant in error, v. Frank Holton and Company, plaintiff in error.

Gen. No. 37,185.

Opinion filed October 16, 1934.

Frederick Hull and Poppenhusen, Johnston, Thompson & Cole, for plaintiff in error; Frederick Hull, Edward R. Johnston and Albert K. Orschel, of counsel. Benjamin H. Ehrlich and Thomas M. Morris, for defendant in error; Aaron H. Cohn and John J. Heffernan, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Stone Arcade AcquisitionCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2006as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Roger Stone, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive and FinancialOfficer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, asadopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of my knowledge:

(1)    The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Pursuant to the rulesand regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, this certificationis being furnished and is not deemed filed.

Signed on this 12th dayof December, 2006.
|        | /s/ Roger Stone                              |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   | Roger Stone                                  |
|   | Chairman and Chief  Executive Officer        |
|   | (Principal Executive  and Financial Officer) |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THERMO TERRATECH INC.'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
APRIL 3, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             APR-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  APR-03-1999
<CASH>                                                 43,013
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          62,954
<ALLOWANCES>                                            3,577
<INVENTORY>                                             1,869
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      135,608
<PP&E>                                                151,219
<DEPRECIATION>                                         59,705
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        351,698
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  68,565
<BONDS>                                               158,617
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                1,958
<OTHER-SE>                                             90,199
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          351,698
<SALES>                                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      310,039
<CGS>                                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         247,610
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       10,217
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        2,085
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      8,981
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          (808)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            1,786
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (1,421)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (1,421)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (0.07)


</TABLE>
# L_2021133EN.01006601.xml

| 20.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 133/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 133/66

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision (EU) 2021/486 of 15 March 2021 on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union in the written procedure by the Participants to the Sector Understanding on Export Credits for Civil Aircraft contained in Annex III to the Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits as regards the Common Line on the temporary deferral of loan principal repayment

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 100 of 23 March 2021
  )

On the cover page, on page 11 and page 12, adoption date:

for:

‘
  15 March 2021
  ’,

read:

‘
  15 February 2021
  ’.

---
#### Frank Pompea, Appellant, v. Thomas H. Swift et al., Respondents.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated April 12, 1965, modified, on the law and the facts, by increasing the amount of the judgment for plaintiff from $2,466.42 [eoneededly paid since judgment] to $4,835.92, with interest to be computed, and by providing that recovery of such judgment shall be with costs and disbursements in lieu of the provisions that the judgment be without costs or disbursements in the action. As so modified, judgment affirmed, with costs to appellant. Findings of fact contained in the opinion-decision below inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. In the light of all the circumstances, including those set forth in the opinion-decision below, a sum of $3,700 should not have been allowed as a credit to defendants for work not finished by plaintiff. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
§ 3430.607 Stakeholder input. NIFA shall seek and obtain stakeholder input through a variety of forums (e.g., public meetings, request for input and/or via Web site), as well as through a notice in the Federal Register, from the following entities: ( a ) Beginning farmers and ranchers.
( b ) National, State, tribal, and local organizations, community-based organizations, and other persons with expertise in operating beginning farmer and rancher programs.
( c ) The Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers established under section 5 of the Agricultural Credit Improvement Act of 1992 (7 U.S.C. 1929 note; Pub. L. 102-554).
# L_2021003EN.01004101.xml

| 7.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 3/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 3/41

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2020/... of the European Central Bank of 1 December 2020 amending Regulation (EU) No 1409/2013 on payments statistics (ECB/2013/43) (ECB/2020/59)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 418 of 11 December 2020
  )

On page 1, the title of the Regulation:

for:

‘REGULATION (EU) 2020/... OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 1 December 2020

amending Regulation (EU) No 1409/2013 on payments statistics (ECB/2013/43) (ECB/2020/59)
  ’

read:

‘REGULATION (EU) 2020/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 1 December 2020

amending Regulation (EU) No 1409/2013 on payments statistics (ECB/2013/43) (ECB/2020/59)
  ’

---
EXHIBIT 32.2



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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



This certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”)
for the three months ended March 31, 2015 of NanoVibronix, Inc. (the “Company”).  I, Stephen Brown, the Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify that, based on my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in this report.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Date:  May 15, 2015 | By:    | /s/ Stephen Brown                                                             
|------------------- | ------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    | Name:  | Stephen Brown                                                                 
|                    | Title: | Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary (Principal Financial Officer)



The foregoing certification is being furnished
as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly,
is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of
any general incorporation language in such filing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Phillip Taylor, Appellant.

[815 NYS2d 90]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Troy K. Webber, J.), rendered November 18, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the first and second degrees and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant never objected, on constitutional grounds, to the admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s plea allocution *(see People v Kello,*96 NY2d 740, 743-744 [2001]; *People v Maher,*89 NY2d 456, 462-463 [1997]; *compare People v Hardy,*4.NY3d 192, 197 n 3 [2005]), and since, in any event, he withdrew his objection completely, his Confrontation Clause claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. “Although defendant’s trial occurred before the decision of the United States Supreme Court in *Crawford v Washington*(541 US 36 [2004]), that circumstance does not affect defendant’s obligation to make a proper constitutional claim, as opposed to a claim grounded in state evidentiary law” *(People v Lopez,*25 AD3d 385, 386 [2006]). Were we to review this claim, we would conclude that, as the People concede, the plea allocution was inadmissible under *Crawford.*However, we would find such error to be harmless, even under the standard for constitutional error *(see e.g. People v Douglas,*4 NY3d 777 [2005]; *People v Saenz,*27 AD3d 379 [2006]), because the other evidence supporting the jury’s guilty verdict is strong and, as the court instructed the jury, the plea allocution was only received for its bearing on whether defendant acted in concert with another person.

When the court adjourned the case outside defendant’s presence because defense counsel was ill, and gave the jurors the standard instructions not to visit the scene, discuss the case *451with anyone, or read media reports, this did not violate defendant’s right to be present at all material stages of the trial. There was no prejudice to defendant’s ability to defend, because the court was performing a ministerial function that was wholly unrelated to the substantive legal or factual issues of the trial *(People v Deacon,*183 AD2d 843, 844-845 [1992], *lv denied*80 NY2d 974 [1992]).

We have considered and rejected the claims contained in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Marlow and Malone, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Alfred A. Mason, Petitioner, v. Police Commissioner of the City of New York, Respondent.

Determination of respondent, Police Commissioner, unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by reducing the punishment imposed from dismissal to suspension for a period of five days. As so modified, the determination is confirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Under the circumstances disclosed in the record, the punishment imposed was excessive. *(Matter of Bovino*v. *Scott,*27 A D 2d 912, mod. 22 N Y 2d 214.) Concur—Capozzoli, J. P., Markewich, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.
Skip Links

USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

Open-File Report 99–0503

About USGS /  Science Topics /  Maps, Products & Publications /  Education / Publication: FAQ

>> Pubs Warehouse > OFR-99-503

## Alaska Digital Aeromagnetic Database Description (On-Line Edition)

#### By G.G. Connard, R.W. Saltus, P.L. Hill, L. Carlson, *and* B. Milicevic

| *Open-File Report*On-Line Edition*Open-File Report*On-Line Edition**Introduction**
Northwest Geophysical Associates, Inc. (NGA) was contracted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to construct a database containing original aeromagnetic data (in digital form) from surveys, maps and grids for the State of Alaska from existing public-domain magnetic data. This database facilitates the detailed study and interpretation of aeromagnetic data along flightline profiles and allows construction of custom grids for selected regions of Alaska. The database is linked to and reflects the work from the statewide gridded compilation completed under a prior contract. The statewide gridded compilation is also described in Saltus and Simmons (1997) and in Saltus and others (1999a, 1999b).

The database area generally covers the on-shore portion of the State of Alaska and the northern Gulf of Alaska excluding the Aleutian Islands. The area extends from 54°N to 72°N latitude...>>MORE   | Version 1.0

Posted October 1999
-  **Report** HTML Version |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|

| AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices                                                                                                                                                                 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey      URL: https://pubsdata.usgs.gov/pubs/of/1999/ofr-99-0503/Questions or Assistance: USGS Web ContactPage Last Modified: Wed Dec  7 17:01 EDT 2016 |  |

----
§ 3201.110 Intermediates—Paint and Coating Components. ( a ) *Definition.* Intermediates—Paint and Coating Components are ingredients used to formulate finished waterborne or solvent borne paint and coating products. Examples of Intermediates—Paint and Coating Components include binders, pigments, thickeners, curing agents, modifiers, humectants, open time additives, alkyd latex resins, polymers, polyols, reactive oligomers, or reactive diluents.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The Federal preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 22 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than July 10, 2019, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased Intermediates—Paint and Coating Components. By that date, Federal agencies responsible for drafting or reviewing specifications for products to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased Intermediates—Paint and Coating Components.
[83 FR 31848, July 10, 2018]