alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Anthony F. Veteran et al., Appellants, v Reginald F. Marra et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, which approved a subdivision plat for the construction of 73 condominium dwellings, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 23, 1980, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements payable to the respondents appearing on this appeal. As supported by the record, Special Term properly found that there had been no violation of any of the provisions of section 7-738 of the Village Law and that the respondent planning board did not exceed the authority granted to it by the village board of trustees when it approved a subdivision plat with only one access road. Therefore, we find that the planning board’s determination was proper, that it was founded on a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious. Moreover, we hold that the planning board, after it was properly designated as lead agency, complied with the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Lazer, J. P., Cohalan, Martuscello and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED **

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

| 1. | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:                March 23, 2006 | /s/                E. F. H. RobertsE.                F. H. Roberts  |
|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                | Executive                Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                |                                                                |
#### § 29.3157 Scrap (S Group).

A by-product of unstemmed and stemmed tobacco. Scrap accumulates from handling tobacco in farm buildings, warehouses, packing and conditioning plants, and stemmeries.

| Grades | Grade names and specifications |
| --- | --- |
| S | Scrap. |
| | Loose, tangled, whole, or broken unstemmed leaves, or web portions of tobacco leaves reduced to scrap by any process. |

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959, as amended at 49 FR 16758, Apr. 20, 1984]
Exhibit 21

Pioneer Railcorp Subsidiaries
------------------------------------------

Alabama Railroad Co. (ALAB)
Alabama & Florida Railway Co., Inc. (AF)
Decatur Junction Railway Co. (DT)
Elkhart & Western Railroad Co. (EWR)
Fort Smith Railroad Co. (FSR)
Gettysburg & Northern Railroad Co. (GET)
Indiana Southwestern Railway Co. (ISW)
Kendallville Terminal Railway Co. (KTR)
Keokuk Junction Railway Co. (KJRY)
Michigan Southern Railroad Company (MSO)
Mississippi Central Railroad Co. (MSCI)
Pioneer Air, Inc. (PAR)
Pioneer Industrial Railway Co. (PRY)
Pioneer Resources, Inc. (PRI)
Pioneer Railroad Services, Inc. (PRS)
Pioneer Railroad Equipment Co., Ltd. (PREL)
Shawnee Terminal Railway Company (STR)
The Garden City Western Railway, Inc. (GCW)
Vandalia Railroad Company (VRRC)
West Michigan Railroad Co. (WMI)


                                       1
EXHIBIT 32.1


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


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to my knowledge, the annual report on Form 10-KSB (the "Report") of ANTs software inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), for the year ended December 31, 2003: 1. 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 results of operations of the Company.


Date: March 30, 2004
By:
/s/ Francis K. RuotoloFrancis K. Ruotolo, Chairman andChief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company, and will be retained by the Company, and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
Motion Granted in Part and Order filed February 22, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00053-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF G.X.H., JR. AND B.X.H., CHILDREN, Appellant

V.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, 

Appellee

On Appeal from the 313th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2017-04498J

ORDER

This is an appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of appellants 

G.X.H. (Father) and R.C. (Mother). Father’s appointed counsel, Juli Crow, notified 

this court she has a conflict of interest and may not represent Father in this appeal. 

She has filed a motion to abate the appeal so the trial court may hold a hearing and 

appoint new counsel for Father. Her motion states a hearing was scheduled for 

Tuesday, February 19, 2019. We do not know whether the hearing was held or 
2

whether new counsel was appointed. 

We decline to abate the appeal, but we grant the motion to the extent it asks 

us to direct the trial court to appoint new counsel for Father. Accordingly, we 

ORDER as follows:

1. The judge of the 313th District Court shall immediately conduct a 

hearing to determine whether Father desires to prosecute this appeal, and, if so, 

whether appellant is indigent and, thus entitled to a free record and appointed counsel 

on appeal. The judge shall appoint an appellate counsel for appellant if necessary. 

The judge shall see that a record of the hearing is made, shall make findings of fact 

and conclusions of law, and shall order the trial clerk to forward a record of the 

hearing and a supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings and conclusions

and any order regarding appointment of new counsel. The transcribed record of the 

hearing, and supplemental clerk’s record shall be filed with the clerk of this court on 

or before February 27, 2019.

2. If new counsel for Father has already been appointed, no hearing 

need be held. Instead, the judge shall order the trial clerk to forward a supplemental 

clerk’s record containing the order appointing new counsel, as well as a record of 

any hearing that was held and any findings of fact and conclusions of law that were 

made. The supplemental clerk’s record and hearing record, if any, shall be filed with 

the clerk of this court on or before February 27, 2019.

PER CURIAM
NASRA M. ARAFAT

, Appellant,

v.

RECEIVER OF SEMINOLE CASUALTY INS. CO.

, FLORIDA CORPORATION

, Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THER EOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 5823

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 6, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. George S. Reynolds , Judge

. Nasra M. Arafat, pro se , Appellant.

Yamile Benitez

- Torviso

, Florida Department o f Financial Services, Doral, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WETHERELL
, BILBREY
, and JAY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
##### 



Exhibit 21  Subsidiaries of SETO Holdings, Inc.

The following is a list of subsidiaries of SETO Holdings, Inc.:

|                                     |  |                                     |  | 
|------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------- |  | 
|Name of Subsidiary                   |  | State/Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|                                     |  |                                    
|Semicon Tools, Inc.                  |  | New York                           
|East Coast Sales Company, Inc.       |  | Connecticut                        
|DTI Technology Sdn. Bhd              |  | Malaysia                           
|Fuji Fabrication, Sdn. Bhd           |  | Malaysia                           
|Hong Kong Batteries Industries, Ltd. |  | Hong Kong                          
|SETO Technology Sdn. Bhd             |  | Malaysia
#### §§ 3550.120-3550.149 [Reserved]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-4158

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JUAN GARCIA-AVALINO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-03-370)

Submitted: June 18, 2004 Decided: July 8, 2004

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Arnold L. Husser, Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Juan Garcia-Avalino appeals his conviction and sentence

for illegally reentering the United States without the permission

of the United States Attorney General after having previously been

deported subsequent to a felony conviction, in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1) (2000). Garcia-Avalino’s attorney has

filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), raising one issue but stating that, in his view, there are

no meritorious grounds for appeal. Although notified of his right

to do so, Garcia-Avalino has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether the

district court erred in sentencing Garcia-Avalino to thirty months

of imprisonment. We find that we have no authority to review the

district court’s decision to sentence Garcia-Avalino to thirty

months because this sentence is within the guideline range and is

below the statutory maximum sentence of ten years. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(1) (setting forth statutory maximum). Because GarciaAvalino’s sentence does not exceed the maximum allowed by the

Sentencing Guidelines or statute, we will not review it on appeal.

See United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990)

(finding challenge to court’s exercise of discretion in setting a

sentence within a properly calculated guideline range not

addressable on appeal).
- 3 -

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for

appeal. We therefore affirm Garcia-Avalino’s conviction and

sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in

writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United

States for further review. If the client requests that a petition

be filed, but counsel believes that such petition would be

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to

withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a

copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
98-1111.

#### State v. Lilly.

Montgomery App. No. 16684.

Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., dissent.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gerald Joseph Hazelton, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County, rendered January 3, 1979, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of robbery in the first degree. Contrary to defendant’s argument, we find nothing unduly suggestive in the lineup conducted by the police in which he was identified by the robbery victim. It might have been better practice to include more individuals of defendant’s apparent age in the grouping, but he did not establish that the lineup actually conducted posed a substantial risk of mistaken identification (cf. *United States v Wade,*388 US 218), and the victim’s in-court recognition of defendant was largely based on the events of the robbery itself. In light of defendant’s prior criminal record and the evident degree of his participation in the instant offense, we also reject his additional contention that the sentence imposed was harsh or excessive. Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur.
1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please

2 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 

3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated

4 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does

5 not include the filing date. 

6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 LESLIE TOSER,

8 Petitioner-Appellee,

9 v. No. 29,305

10 CADMON WHITTY,

11 Respondent-Appellant.

12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

13 Gerard L. Lavelle, District Judge

14 Barbara Arbuckle

15 Albuquerque, NM

16 for Appellee

17 Cadmon Whitty

18 Albuquerque, NM

19 Pro Se Appellant

20 MEMORANDUM OPINION

21 VIGIL, Judge.

22 Summary reversal was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed

23 disposition. Appellant filed a memorandum in support of the proposed summary
2

1 disposition. No memorandum opposing summary dismissal has been filed, and the

2 time for doing so has expired.

3 REVERSED.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 _______________________________

6 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 

7 WE CONCUR:

8 _______________________________

9 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge

10 _______________________________

11 ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2360 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2360

    To reauthorize the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area, the 
   Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area, the Delaware and Lehigh 
 National Heritage Corridor, and the Schuylkill River Valley National 
                             Heritage Area.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 13, 2013

    Mr. Fitzpatrick (for himself and Mr. Cartwright) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To reauthorize the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area, the 
   Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area, the Delaware and Lehigh 
 National Heritage Corridor, and the Schuylkill River Valley National 
                             Heritage Area.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS AND CORRIDOR.

    (a) Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area.--Section 408 of the 
Steel Industry American Heritage Area Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-333; 
110 Stat. 4256; 127 Stat. 420) is amended by striking ``2013'' and 
inserting ``2023''.
    (b) Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area.--Section 108 of the 
Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-
278; 114 Stat. 818; 127 Stat. 420) is amended by striking ``2013'' and 
inserting ``2023''.
    (c) Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor.--Section 12 of 
the Delaware and Lehigh Navigation Canal National Heritage Corridor Act 
of 1988 (Public Law 100-692; 102 Stat. 4558; 112 Stat. 3260; 123 Stat. 
1293; 127 Stat. 420) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``2013'' and 
        inserting ``2023''; and
            (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``2013'' and inserting 
        ``2023''.
    (d) Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Area.--Section 209 of 
the Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Area Act (Public Law 106-
278; 114 Stat. 824) is amended by striking ``the date that is 15 years 
after the date of enactment of this title'' and inserting ``September 
30, 2023''.
                                 <all>
```
### Methods of analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Group: Determination of selected herbicides and their degradation products in water using solid-phase extraction and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry

By: J.L. KishE.M. ThurmanE.A. ScribnerL.R. Zimmerman

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr00385

#### Links

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

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### Byers' Heirs *vs.*Byers' Executor &c.

Chancery.

[Mr. Hoi'd for plaintiff: Mr. W. C. Marshall for defendants.]

From the Circuit Court for Bracken County.

*April*30.

A will must be earned into effeet, so far as it indicates the testator's intention. But, though he may expressly declare his intention to dispose of his whole estate — yet, if the will is so defective, that no inference can be drawn from it, as to who he intended shall take certain portions, he must be considered as having died intestate as to those portions; which, therefore, descend to the heirs and distributees-The failure of distributees to tender refunding bonds, is no cause for dismissing their bill. But they will not be entitled to interest on the funds, unless they show that the executor has derived profit from them.

Judge Marshall

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

The testator having clearly expressed the intention to dispose of his whole estate by his will, that intention ’ *314should be carried into effect as far as it is made manifest, by the provisions of the will itself, to whom he intended to give the various portions of his estate — though as to a particular part of it, there be no expi’ess formal devise.

On this principle, we are of opinion that the Circuit Court did not err in decreeing that, the defendant, Daniel Byers, was entitled, under the will, to one half of the farm of two hundred acres, during the life of his mother. It was evidently the intention of the testator that he should have it.

But as to the personal estate, other than that bequeathed to the testator’s widow (which was so much of the farming utensils, stock and furniture as she chose to keep,) the will, not only makes no express disposition of it, either general or special, but gives no indication whatever, by which it can be inferred to whom, if to any particular one or more among the persons named in his will, he intended or desired to give it. As to this portion of his estate, therefore, he died intestate, and the complainants, being a part of his heirs and distributees, are entitled to their respective portions thereof. Their failure to tender a refunding bond to the executor, did not justify a dismissal of the bill, though it deprived them of the right of demanding interest from him, except so far as they might make it appear that he had received interest, or had used or made profit of the estate in his hands.

The decree is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to ascertain, in the usual manner, the amount of the personal estate unbequeathed by the testator, as before stated, and with which the executor is chargeable, after allowing all proper credits, and to decree to the complainants respectively, on their executing refunding bonds to the executor, as required by law, the several sums to which they are entitled as distributees.
§ 3201.30 Glass cleaners. ( a ) *Definition.* Cleaning products designed specifically for use in cleaning glass surfaces, such as windows, mirrors, car windows, and computer monitors.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The preferred procurement product must have a biobased content of at least 49 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. If the finished product is to be diluted before use, the biobased content of the cleaner must be determined before dilution.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than May 14, 2009, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased glass cleaners. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for items to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased glass cleaners.
[73 FR 27973, May 14, 2008]