alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

*June 22, 2006*

[Cite as *06/22/06 Case Announcements,*2006-Ohio-3140.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2003-2036.

#### State v. Barton.

Warren App. No. 03CR20526. This cause came on for further consideration of appellant’s motion to schedule a competency evaluation to determine whether the defendant is competent to waive further appeals and his request for a stay of execution so that the competency evaluation can be completed. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Warren County for the following limited purpose:

The court of common pleas is directed to promptly hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant’s competency to waive further appeals should be psychiatrically evaluated. The court shall further determine whether such decision was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made. The trial court should consider any matters reflecting on the defendant’s competency submitted by the defense counsel or the state.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that, as soon as the court of common pleas has conducted this evidentiary hearing and made the appropriate findings of fact, the court of common pleas should announce its ruling. Should the trial court rule that a competency evaluation ought to be conducted, R.C. 2945.371, Section (B) should be followed for appointing an examiner to conduct the evaluation; Section (F) should be followed in directing the examiner to consider “all relevant evidence” in completing the evaluation; and Section (G) should be followed for the format and timeframe for the completion of the examiner’s report. Any examiner appointed by the trial court should apply the test set forth in *State v. Berry*(1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 1504, 659 N.E.2d 796, in conducting the psychiatric evaluation. At all times during this limited remand, this court shall retain jurisdiction of this cause. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appellant’s motion for a stay of execution is denied.

O’Donnell, J., would deny the motion to schedule a competency evaluation.
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2

              SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                        THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*

In connection  with the annual report of North  American  Nickel Inc.  (formerly
Widescope  Resources  Inc.) (the  "Company")  on Form 20-F for the period ending
December 31, 2012 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Cheryl Messier,  Chief Financial  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:

(1)  the  Report  containing  the  financial  statements  of the  Company  fully
     complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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: April 15, 2013

/s/ Cheryl Messier
--------------------------------------------
Cheryl Messier
Chief Financial Officer

* A signed original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

----
#### In the Matter of Michael Amatulli, Appellant, v Board of Assessors of the County of Nassau, Respondent. (And 27 Other Proceedings.)

In proceedings pursuant to article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law, petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated August 30, 1979, which denied their motion for consolidation or a joint trial of the proceedings commenced by them against the Board of Assessors of the County of Nassau. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted to the extent that the proceedings shall be jointly tried. The various petitioners instituted 28 proceedings pursuant to article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law to review the real property assessments of their residences by the respondent, the Board of Assessors of the County of Nassau, for the 1978-1979 tax year. Each petitioner claims that he was being overvalued and unequally assessed. All 28 lots are located in Freeport and are improved with single-family residences. Special Term denied petitioners’ motion for consolidation or a joint trial on the grounds that sufficient common questions did not exist and that the properties are not in the same development, were not built by the same builder from the same plans, and are not of the same size and construction. Special Term erred. The issues of overassessment and inequality are common to all the petitioners and thus satisfy the requirement of CPLR 602 that the actions have a common question of law or fact. Further, respondent has not shown that it would be substantially prejudiced by the granting of relief to petitioners. (See *Matter of Blank v Becker,*50 AD2d 418; *860 Executive Towers v Board of Assessors of County of Nassau,*43 AD2d 910; see, also, Real Property Tax Láw, § 710; CPLR 602.) In our opinion a joint trial will best serve the interests of the parties. Hopkins, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
22.1016 Statement of equivalent rates for

Federal hires.

(a) The statement required under the clause at 52.222-42, Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal

Hires, (see 22.1006(b)) shall set forth those wage rates and fringe benefits that would be paid by the

contracting activity to the various classes of service employees expected to be utilized under the

contract if 5 U.S.C.5332 (General Schedule-white collar) and/or 5 U.S.C.5341 (Wage Board-blue

collar) were applicable.

(b) Procedures for computation of these rates are as follows:

(1) Wages paid blue collar employees shall be the basic hourly rate for each class. The rate shall be

Wage Board pay schedule step two for nonsupervisory service employees and step three for

supervisory service employees.

(2) Wages paid white collar employees shall be an hourly rate for each class. The rate shall be

obtained by dividing the general pay schedule step one biweekly rate by 80.

(3) Local civilian personnel offices can assist in determining and providing grade and salary data.

Parent topic: Subpart 22.10 - Service Contract Labor Standards
§ 400.169 Disputes. ( a ) If the Company believes that the FCIC has taken an action that is not in accordance with the provisions of a Reinsurance Agreement except compliance issues, it may request the Deputy Administrator of Insurance Services to make a final administrative determination addressing the disputed action. The Deputy Administrator of Insurance Services will render the final administrative determination of the FCIC with respect to the applicable actions. All requests for a final administrative determination must be in writing and submitted within 45 days after receipt after the disputed action.
( b ) With respect to compliance matters, the Compliance Field Office renders an initial finding, permits the Company to respond, and then issues a final finding. If the Company believes that the Compliance Field Office's final finding is not in accordance with the applicable laws, regulations, custom or practice of the insurance industry, or FCIC approved policy and procedure, it may request the Deputy Administrator of Compliance to make a final administrative determination addressing the disputed final finding. The Deputy Administrator of Compliance will render the final administrative determination of the FCIC with respect to the final finding. All requests for a final administrative determination must be in writing and submitted within 45 days after receipt of the final finding.
( c ) A Company may also request reconsideration by the Deputy Administrator of Insurance Services of a decision of the FCIC rendered under any FCIC bulletin or directive which bulletin or directive does not interpret, explain, or restrict the terms of the Reinsurance Agreement. The Company, if it disputes the FCIC's determination, must request a reconsideration of that determination in writing, within 45 days of the receipt of the determination. The determination of the Deputy Administrator of Insurance Services will be final and binding on the Company. Such determinations will not be appealable to the Board of Contract Appeals.
( d ) Appealable final administrative determinations of the FCIC under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section may be appealed to the Board of Contract Appeals in accordance with 48 CFR part 6102 and with the provisions 7 CFR part 24.
#### § 3560.578 Financial management of labor housing.

The requirements established in subpart G of this part will apply to all off-farm labor housing.
#### §§ 4279.284-4279.289 [Reserved]
#### § 3431.2 Purpose.

The Secretary will follow the processes and procedures established in subpart A of this part to designate veterinarian shortage situations for the VMLRP. Applications for the VMLRP will be accepted from eligible veterinarians who agree to serve in one of the designated shortage situations in exchange for the repayment of an amount of the principal and interest of the veterinarian's qualifying educational loans. The administrative provisions for the VMLRP, including the application process, are established in subpart B of this part.
### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that, onApril 29, 2615, I caused to be served a copy ofthe foregoing Application for Certificate ofPublic Convenience and Necessity, by electronic mail upon those addressees listed below:

Jaura.remo@dot.gov (DOT) vanessa.balgobin@dot.gov (DOT) douglas.bordeaux@faa.gov (FAA Principal Operations Inspector) steve.morrissey@united.com (United) gmurphy@crowell.com (Counsel for United) sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com (Delta) jl1ill@cooley.com (Counsel for JetBlue and Hawaiian) perkmann@cooley.com (Counsel for JetBlue and Hawaiian) Jeremy.ross@alaskair.com (Alaska) dhcffernan@cozen.com (Counsel for Alaska) jyoung@yklaw.com (Counsel for Spirit) dkirstein@yklaw.com (Counsel for Spirit) bob.kneisley@wnco.com (Southwest) leslie.abbott@wncom.com (Southwest) jobn.fredericksen@suncountry.com (Sun Country) thomas.ting@suncountry.com (Sun Country) matwood@cozen.com (Counsel for Frontier) slachter@cozen.com (Counsel for Frontier) howard.kass@aa.com (American) agoerlich@ggh-airlaw.com (Counsel for Allegiant) jmaddux@ggh-airlaw.com (Counsel for Allegiant) kday@flydenver.com (Denver International Airport) cmcintyr@,Ranynj.gov (PortAuthority ofNewYork and New Jersey) jbourk@Hybranson.com (BransonAirport) jpbourk@aol.com (BransonAirport) molly.waits@houstontx.gov (HoustonAirport)
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 44088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17819]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Sixty-Fourth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 135, Environmental 
Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 135, Environmental 
Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
Sixty-Fourth meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 135, Environmental 
Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment.

DATES: The meeting will be held October 7-9 2014 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 
p.m. on October 7 and 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on October 8-9.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 
450, Washington DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 330-
0652/(202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or Sophie Bousquet, sbousquet@rtca.org, 202-330-0663.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 135. The agenda will 
include the following:

October 7-9

     Chairmen's Opening Remarks, Introductions.
     Approval of Summary from the Sixty-Third Meeting--(RTCA 
Paper No. 123-14/SC135-698).
     Review FRAC Responses and Release the final document for 
the PMC and TAC
     Review Revised Terms of Reference.
     Review DO-160G/ED 14G Errata Sheet
     New/Unfinished Business.
     Establish date/locations for Next SC-135 Meetings.
     Closing and Adjourn
    Coordination with EUROCAE WG-14 in Paris will be held by WebEx on 
October 7 morning 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. (EDT), October 8-9 morning 8:00 
a.m.-12:00 p.m. (EDT). It is focused on item 3 and 5 but may be 
expended as far as practicable.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 18 2014.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Business Operations Group, Federal 
Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-17819 Filed 7-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Wogenstahl, Appellant.

[Cite as *State v. Wogenstahl*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 516.]

(No. 98-1146

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided November 10, 1998.)

*517
      *Joseph T. Deters,*Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and *William E. Breyer,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

*Jeffrey A. Wogenstahl, pro se.*

*Per Curiam.*

The determinative question before this court is whether the court of appeals erred in dismissing appellant’s delayed application to reopen for *518lack of good cause shown and on grounds of *res judicata.*We find that the court of appeals- was correct in dismissing appellant’s application to reopen, since appellant failed to demonstrate good cause in filing an untimely delayed application.

Moreover, our decision in *State v. Wogenstahl,*75 Ohio St.3d at 351, 662 N.E.2d at 318, determined that appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel lacked merit. In his instant appeal before this court, appellant simply argues the same errors that we rejected in his original death penalty appeal. Therefore, that decision is *res judicata.*Application of the *res judicata*doctrine in this case is not unjust. See *State v. Murnahan,*63 Ohio St.3d at 66, 584 N.E.2d at 1209.

Appellant’s argument that this court failed to separately consider and decide each and every instance of claimed ineffective assistance in that appeal is plainly wrong. As we noted in appellant’s capital appeal, “this court is not required to address and discuss, in opinion form, each and every proposition of law raised by the parties in a death penalty appeal. See, *e.g., State v. Scudder*(1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 263, 267, 643 N.E.2d 524, 528.” *State v. Wogenstahl,*75 Ohio St.3d at 351, 662 N.E.2d at 318. Moreover, we stated that “[w]e have carefully considered each of appellant’s propositions of law * * *. * * * [Ajppellant received * * * competent representation both at trial and on appeal. *We address, in opinion form, only those matters that merit some discussion.”*(Emphasis added.) *Id.*

The judgment of the- court of appeals is therefore affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
9.109-3 Exception.

The prohibition in 9.109-2 does not apply to contracts for the procurement of products or services

along a major route of supply to a zone of active combat or major contingency operation, as specified

in statute or by the cognizant Combatant Commander, in consultation with the Chief of Mission. As

of May 10, 2018, countries along the major route of supply to support operations in Afghanistan are

Afghanistan, Georgia, the Kyrgyz Republic, Pakistan, the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of

Azerbaijan, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Republic of Tajikistan, the Republic of Uzbekistan, and

Turkmenistan.

Parent topic: 9.109 Prohibition on contracting with an entity involved in activities that violate arms

control treaties or agreements with the United States.
§ 400.703 Timing and format. ( a ) A 508(h) submission, concept proposal, or index-based weather plan of insurance may only be provided to FCIC during the first five business days in January, April, July, and October.
( b ) A 508(h) submission, concept proposal, or index-based weather plan of insurance must be provided as an electronic file to FCIC in Microsoft Office compatible format, sent to either the address in paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section by the due date in paragraph (a) of this section. The electronic file must contain a document with a detailed index that, in sequential order, references the location of the required information that may either be contained within the document or in a separate file. The detailed index must clearly identify each required section and include the page number if the information is contained in the document or file name if the information is contained in a separate file; and
( c ) Any 508(h) submission, concept proposal, or index-based weather plan of insurance not provided within the first 5 business days of a month stated in paragraph (a) of this section will be considered to have been provided in the next month stated in paragraph (a). For example, if an applicant provides a 508(h) submission on January 10, it will be considered to have been received on April 1.
( d ) Any 508(h) submission, concept proposal, or index-based weather plan of insurance must be provided to one of the following addresses, but not both: ( 1 ) By email to the Deputy Administrator for Product Management (or successor) at *DeputyAdministrator@rma.usda.gov ;* or
( 2 ) By mail on a removable storage device such as a compact disk or Universal Serial Bus (USB) drive, sent to the Deputy Administrator for Product Management (or any successor position), USDA/Risk Management Agency, 2312 East Bannister Road, Kansas City, MO 64131-3011.
( e ) In addition to the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section, a 508(h) submission must be received not later than 240 days prior to the earliest proposed sales closing date to be considered for sale in the requested crop year.
( f ) To be offered for sale in a crop year, there must be at least sixty days between the date the policy is ready to be made available for sale and the earliest sales closing date, unless this requirement is expressly waived by the Board.
( g ) Notwithstanding, paragraph (f) of this section, the Board, or RMA if authorized by the Board, shall determine when sales can begin for a 508(h) submission approved by the Board after consideration of the analysis provided by the applicant AIP of the impact of the proposed implementation date on the delivery system.
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 Annual Report of APA Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Cheryl
      Beranek Podzimek, Chief Executive Officer 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, to the best of my knowledge that:





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





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








/s/
                Cheryl Beranek PodzimekCheryl
                Beranek PodzimekChief
                Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to SEC Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)

I, Elizabeth A Czerepak, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Altimmune, Inc.; and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                                                                                                                                  
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Dated: October 18, 2017 |  |  |  | /s/ Elizabeth A. Czerepak                                                                                                        
|                        |  |  |  | Name: Elizabeth A Czerepak                                                                                                       
|                        |  |  |  | Title: Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President of Corporate Development (principal financial and accounting officer)
## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

February 9, 2024 SC-2023-0764 Ex parte Todd Wayne Fye. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Todd Wayne Fye v. State of Alabama) (Houston Circuit Court: CC-17-1131 through CC-17-1309; Criminal Appeals: CR-2022-0819).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was entered in this cause on February 9, 2024: Writ Denied. No Opinion. Mitchell, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Bryan, and Mendheim, JJ., concur. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
16.204 Fixed-price incentive contracts.

A fixed-price incentive contract is a fixed-price contract that provides for adjusting profit and

establishing the final contract price by a formula based on the relationship of final negotiated total

cost to total target cost. Fixed-price incentive contracts are covered in subpart 16.4, Incentive

Contracts. See 16.403 for more complete descriptions, application, and limitations for these

contracts. Prescribed clauses are found at 16.406.

Parent topic: Subpart 16.2 - Fixed-Price Contracts