alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 3565.110 Insolvency of lender.

The Agency may require a lender to transfer a guaranteed loan or loans to another approved lender prior to a determination of insolvency by the lender. If the lender fails to transfer a loan when required, the guarantee will be considered null and void.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2596 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to authorize the Attorney General 

to share information with agencies of State and local governments that 

conduct criminal background checks when issuing licenses to taxi drivers, 

chauffeurs, and other public passenger vehicle operators. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 28, 2013 

Mr. KING of New York (for himself, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. ROSKAM, and Mr. ISRAEL) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to authorize the 

Attorney General to share information with agencies of 

State and local governments that conduct criminal background checks when issuing licenses to taxi drivers, 

chauffeurs, and other public passenger vehicle operators. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Passenger Safety and 

5 Security Act’’ or the ‘‘PASS Act’’. 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2596 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL TO SHARE IN2 FORMATION WITH STATE AND LOCAL GOV3 ERNMENT AGENCIES. 

4 Section 534 of title 28, United States Code, is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (e)— 

7 (A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of para8 graph (1); 

9 (B) by striking the period at the end of 

10 paragraph (2) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

11 (C) by adding at the end the following new 

12 paragraph: 

13 ‘‘(3) agencies of State or local governments, in14 cluding agencies of State or local governments act15 ing through a qualified transportation regulation as16 sociation, that conduct criminal background inves17 tigations as a condition of issuing a taxi, chauffeur, 

18 public passenger, or other similar license.’’; and 

19 (2) in subsection (f)(3)— 

20 (A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of sub21 paragraph (A); 

22 (B) by striking the period at the end of 

23 subparagraph (B) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

24 (C) by adding at the end the following new 

25 subparagraph: 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2596 IH

1 ‘‘(C) the term ‘qualified transportation 

2 regulation association’ means the International 

3 Association of Transportation Regulators, or a 

4 wholly owned subsidiary of such association, 

5 used by a State or local agency for the purpose 

6 of sharing criminal background check informa7 tion between the Department of Justice and the 

8 appropriate State and local agencies.’’. 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
VERMONT

Vermont Departent of Environmental Conservation

Air Pollution Control Division

103 South Main Street, 3 South

Waterbury, VT 05671-0402

Agency of Natural Resources

(phone) 802-241-3840 (fax) 802-241-2590

August 26, 2009

Ane Arnold

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 

1 Congress Street, Suite 1100

Boston, MA 02114-2023

Re: VERMONT SIP REVISIONS TO ADDRESS REGIONAL HAZE

Dear Ms. Arnold

Thank you for the helpful comments you submitted from the US Environmental Protection Agency on

February 24 , 2009 in review of the December 18 2008 Draft Revisions to Vermont' s State

Implementation Plan (SIP) to address regional haze as required by the federal Regional Haze Rule, 40

CFR 51.309.

The State of Vermont has also received review comments on its Draft Regional Haze SIP Revision from

the U. S. Deparment of Agriculture, Forest Service, the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. Vermont has revised its Regional Haze SIP in accordance with these comments, as

summarized in the attached document entitled: VT Responses to Us. Federal Land Management Agency

and Us. Environmental Protection Agency Comments on 12/18/08 and 1/15/09 Draft Revisions to

Vermont s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP).

The enclosed compact disk includes a full copy ofthe current (June 2009) Vermont Regional Haze SIP

Revision, including the supporting attachments and documentation. These documents are also available

on the Air Pollution Control Division s website at

http://ww.anr.state.vt.us/air/Planning/htm/StateImplementationPlan.htm. Our SIP revisions were also

submitted to Ira Leighton, EP A Region 1 Acting Regional Administrator.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Heidi Hales of my staff at (802) 241-3848 or at

heidi.hales(fstate. vt. us.

Sincerely,

r14t1U- tt iu0,t:

Richard A. Valentinetti

Director, Air Pollution Control Division

Enclosure

cc via email:

Ane McWiliams, EP A Region 1

To preserve, enhance, restore, and conserve Vermont's natural resources, and protect human health,Jor the benefit of this andfuture

generations.
§ 3550.72 Community land trusts. Eligible dwellings located on land owned by a community land trust may be financed if: ( a ) The loan meets all the requirements of this subpart; and
( b ) Any restrictions, imposed by the community land trust on the property or applicant are: ( 1 ) Reviewed and accepted by RHS before loan closing; and
( 2 ) Automatically and permanently terminated upon foreclosure or acceptance by RHS of a deed in lieu of foreclosure.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22I0017.CHILDREN’SWORLD LEARNING CENTER,LLC. v.BRANDICE

CARTER et al.

Children’s World Learning Center, LLC seeksinterlocutory review of the trial

court’s order denying its motion for summary judgment. The trial court’s order was

entered on July 20, 2021, and the certificate of immediate review was entered on

August 2, 2021. We lack jurisdiction. 

Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), a partymay request interlocutory review only if the

trial court certifies within ten days of entry of the order at issue that immediate review

should be had. A timely certificate of immediate review is a jurisdictional

requirement. See Von Waldner v. Baldwin/Cheshire, Inc., 133 Ga. App. 23, 24 (2)

(209 SE2d 715) (1974). If the certificate of immediate review is not entered within

the prescribed ten-day period, it is untimely, and the party seeking review must wait

until the final judgment to appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Turner v. Harper, 231 Ga.

175, 176 (200 SE2d 748) (1973). 

Here, the certificate of immediate review was not entered until 13 days after the

entry of the order denying summary judgment. The certificate of immediate review

isthus untimely. See Van Schallern v. Stanco, 130 Ga. App. 687, 687 (204 SE2d 317)

(1974) (“[A] certificate for the immediate review of a nonfinal or interlocutory

judgment is ineffective unless entered, i.e., filed with the clerk, within ten days after

entry of the judgment appealed from.”). 

 

September 02, 2021
Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider this application, which is hereby

DISMISSED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

09/02/2021
Exhibit 32.1





Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


of Title 18 of the United States Code





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PharmAthene, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Eric I. Richman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act.





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





/s/ Eric I. RichmanEric I. RichmanChief Executive OfficerMay 11, 2011
#### § 331.6 [Reserved]
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 250 

To amend the Antiquities Act of 1906 to place additional requirements 

on the establishment of national monuments under that Act, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2013 

Mr. CHAFFETZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Antiquities Act of 1906 to place additional 

requirements on the establishment of national monuments under that Act, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NA4 TIONAL MONUMENT. 

5 Section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (commonly 

6 known as the ‘‘Antiquities Act of 1906’’; 16 U.S.C. 431) 

7 is amended by striking ‘‘, in his discretion, to declare by 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 250 IH

1 public proclamation’’ and inserting ‘‘ to declare, subject 

2 to approval by an Act of Congress,’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with
#### The State ex rel. Draganic, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel Draganic v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 355.]

(No. 96-90

Submitted September 16, 1998

Decided October 14, 1998.)

*356
      *Garson & Associates Co., L.P.A., David L. Meyerson*and *Grace A. Szubski,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Gerald H. Waterman,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

*Per Curiam.*

Subsequent to the completion of briefing in this case, we decided *State ex rel. Draganic v. Indus. Comm.*(1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 461, 663 N.E.2d 929. There, we held that the commission was not bound by its January 10, 1992 interlocutory order and did not abuse its discretion in denying PTD subsequent to April 20, 1992. Claimant’s appeal is, therefore, moot, and it is dismissed.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:92-cr-01026-MP

CHRISTOPHER JOEL MAROTTA,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 123, Amended Motion to Dismiss Indictment by

United States as to Christopher Joel Marotta. In the motion, the government states that the

interests of justice would be served by dismissing the indictment "due to the age of this

indictment, the unavailability of witnesses, and the defendant’s assistance to the United States

Naval Criminal Investigative Service in the Canal Zone of the Republic of Panama." 

Accordingly, the indictment is hereby dismissed against Christopher Joel Marotta.

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of July, 2005

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:92-cr-01026-MP Document 124 Filed 07/26/05 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Charles Clarkson, Appellant, v Stephen Dalsheim, as Superintendent of the Ossining Correctional Facility, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to review a determination of the parole board, dated December 20, 1976, which fixed the *699petitioner’s minimum period of imprisonment, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered August 22, 1978, which dismissed the petition as time barred. Appeal dismissed as moot, without costs or disbursements. Since the petitioner has now served his minimum period of imprisonment and is free on parole, the appeal is moot (see *People ex rel. Emanuel v Quinn,*48 NY2d 1025). Hopkins, J. P., Rabin, O’Connor and Margett, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Bidz.com, Inc. (“Bidz.com”), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Bidz.com on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Bidz.com.

 
| Date:  May 11,   2011 | By     | /s/   David Zinberg       |
|--------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|                                 |   | David   Zinberg           |
|                                 |   | Chief   Executive Officer |
|                                 |   |                      |
| Date:  May 11,   2011 | By     | /s/   Lawrence Kong       |
|                                 |   | Lawrence   Kong           |
|                                 |   | Chief   Financial Officer |

 

----
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:03cr25-SPM

DAVID WAYNE JACKSON,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL AND

SETTING SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Pending before the Court is Defendant Jackson’s stipulated motion for

continuance of trial (doc. 30). As grounds, Defendant explains that he filed a

motion to suppress on May 4, 2005. Defendant is currently scheduled for trial on

the May 16, 2005 Tallahassee trial docket, but there is not enough time before

the scheduled trial date for the Court to hear and consider the motion.

The Government does not oppose a continuance. The resulting delay will

not be included in the speedy trial act period. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F); United

States v. Davenport, 935 F.2d 1223, 1228 (11th Cir. 1991). The ends of justice

served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and

Defendant in a speedy trial. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Defendant’s motion for continuance (doc. 30) is granted. 

Case 4:03-cr-00025-MW-CAS Document 32 Filed 05/10/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No.: 4:03cr25-SPM

2. Trial is reset for 8:30 a.m. on June 27, 2005 at the United States 

Courthouse in Tallahassee, Florida.

3. The motion to suppress will be heard on Monday, May 16, 2005 at

9:00 a.m.

4. On or before May 12, 2005, the Government shall file a written

response to the motion to suppress.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of May, 2005.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cr-00025-MW-CAS Document 32 Filed 05/10/05 Page 2 of 2
#### Fort William Henry Corporation, Respondent, v. Lake George Inn, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Gabrielli, J.

Respondent, in this foreclosure action, has obtained an order granting summary judgment from which the record owner appeals. Various defenses and counterclaims were interposed, only two of which merit the attention of this court. The default claimed by the mortgagee amounted to the sum of $41,792.30 consisting of $17,000 in principal and interest payments as well as the sum of $24,792.30 for delinquent taxes. Before the commencement of this action, the State had condemned a portion of the mortgaged premises and had awarded the sum of $42,000 in damages. This amount is still held by the State because respondent has refused to execute the necessary documents to permit payment. The foreclosure action, however, has been brought only against the remaining property. That the condemned parcel was a part of the mortgaged premises is conceded by respondent in paragraph 13 of its moving affidavit. It follows that had the amount held by the State been released and permitted to be used for payment to the mortgagee and the liquidation of delinquent taxes there would and could have been no default. Appellant has alleged a prior tender of the $17,000 due for principal and, interest and, although there is discussion of this in respondent’s brief, there is no denial of the tender either in the affidavits submitted for the motion or in respondent’s reply. In addition, appellant has interposed a counterclaim in excess of the amount of the claimed default, based on respondent’s breach of covenants to provide necessary water and sewage easements. The general rule that where there is a legally sufficient counterclaim for an amount in excess of the amount demanded in the complaint, summary judgment should be denied *(Illinois McGraw Elec. Co.*v. *John J. Walters, Inc.,*7 N Y 2d 874; *Treacy*v. *Melrose Paper Stock Co.,*269 N. Y. 155) applies with equal force to foreclosure actions *(Dime Sav. Bank of Brooklyn*v. *Feeney,*246 App. Div. 769). By its order, Special Term granted summary judgment in the foreclosure action, struck the entire answer (containing the counterclaim), and then ordered a severance of this counterclaim to be later tried out. By reason of the allegations made by appellant regarding the mortgagee’s refusal to execute the required documents permitting payment of the condemnation award (and perforce payment to respondent) it is possible that a trier of the fact could find that such conduct was oppressive, unconscionable and in bad faith and, in such event, foreclosure would be denied *(Ferlazzo*v. *Riley,*278 N. Y. 289; *Blomgren*v. *Tinton 763 Corp.,*18 A D 2d 979). In light of all these circumstances, summary judgment was improperly granted. The pleadings present triable issues of fact. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs. Reynolds, J. P., Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Gabrielli, J.
#### § 33.2 Person.

*Person* means an individual, partnership, association, corporation, or any other business unit.
EXHIBIT 32.1



May 8, 2008

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, NE

Washington, DC 20549



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Lazard Group
LLC (the Registrant) hereby certifies that the Registrants quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|                                                      
|/s/    Bruce Wasserstein                              
|Bruce Wasserstein Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
---

Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of PDC 2005-B Limited Partnership (the
“Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
the undersigned certify pursuant to § 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
      Registrant.





/s/ Richard W.
    McCullough
            
            November
      13, 2009Richard
      W. McCulloughChief
      Executive OfficerPetroleum
      Development CorporationManaging
      General Partner/s/ Gysle R. Shellum
            
            November
      13, 2009Gysle
      R. ShellumChief
      Financial OfficerPetroleum
      Development CorporationManaging
      General Partner





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided by the Registrant and will be retained by the
Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 21, 2015

No. 04-15-00405-CV

David GILLESPIE,

Appellant

v.

A.L. 

A.L. HERNDEN and Frederick R. Zlotoucha,

Appellee

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-10278

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

CORRECTED ORDER

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief has this date been received 

and filed in the above styled and numbered cause. Extension of time to file the Appellant’s brief 

is this date GRANTED. Time is extended to December 4, 2015.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ____________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE

CLERK OF COURT

cc: Kimberly S. Keller

No. 120

Boerne, TX 78006-2805

Andrew E. Toscano

Gene Toscano Inc

846 Culebra Rd Ste 104

San Antonio, TX 78201-6244

Richard A. Sparr Jr.

Sparr & Geerdes

1313 NE Loop 410 Ste 100

San Antonio, TX 78209-1529

Frederick R. Zlotucha

Law Office of Frederick R. Zlotucha

222 E Main Plz

San Antonio, TX 78205-2717
#### § 3555.300 OMB control number.

The report and recordkeeping requirements contained in this subpart are currently with the Office of Management and Budget under review and awaiting approval.
§ 3430.51 Payment. ( a ) *General.* All payments will be made in advance unless a deviation is accepted (see § 3430.3) or as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. All payments to the awardee shall be made via the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Payment Management System (DHHS-PMS), U.S. Department of the Treasury's Automated Standard Application for Payments (ASAP) system, or another electronic funds transfer (EFT) method, except for awards to other Federal agencies. Awardees are expected to request funds via DHHS-PMS, ASAP, or other electronic payment system for reimbursement basis in a timely manner.
( b ) *Reimbursement method.* NIFA shall use the reimbursement method if it determines that advance payment is not feasible and that the awardee does not maintain or demonstrate the willingness to maintain written procedures that minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds and disbursement by the awardee, and financial management systems that meet the standards for fund control and accountability.
§ 3565.202 Tenant eligibility. ( a ) *Limits on income of tenants.* The housing units subject to a guaranteed loan must be available for occupancy only by low or moderate-income families or individuals whose incomes at the time of initial occupancy do not exceed 115 percent of the area median income. After initial occupancy, a tenant's income may exceed these limits.
( b ) *Citizenship status.* A tenant must be a United States citizen or a noncitizen who is a qualified alien as defined in § 3565.3.