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

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2568 

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Captain John 

Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 6, 2006 

Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. WARNER, Mr. ALLEN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. 

BIDEN, and Mr. CARPER) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the 

Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. 

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 ‘‘Captain John Smith 

5 Chesapeake National Historic Trail Designation Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ADDITION TO NATIONAL SCENIC AND NATIONAL 

7 HISTORIC TRAILS. 

8 Section 5(a) of the National Trails System Act (16 

9 U.S.C. 1244(a)) is amended by adding at the end the fol10 lowing: 


HMoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 2568 IS

1 ‘‘(25) CAPTAIN JOHN SMITH CHESAPEAKE NA2 TIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL.— 

3 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Captain John 

4 Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, a 

5 series of water routes extending approximately 

6 3,000 miles along the Chesapeake Bay and the 

7 tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay in the States 

8 of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Dela9 ware, and in the District of Columbia, that 

10 traces the 1607 and 1608 voyages of Captain 

11 John Smith to chart the land and waterways of 

12 the Chesapeake Bay. 

13 ‘‘(B) MAP.—A map generally depicting the 

14 trail shall be on file and available for public in15 spection in the appropriate offices of the Na16 tional Park Service. 

17 ‘‘(C) ADMINISTRATION.—The trail shall be 

18 administered by the Secretary of the Interior— 

19 ‘‘(i) in coordination with— 

20 ‘‘(I) the Chesapeake Bay Gate21 ways and Watertrails Network author22 ized under the Chesapeake Bay Initia23 tive Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; 

24 112 Stat. 2961); and 


HMoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•S 2568 IS

1 ‘‘(II) the Chesapeake Bay Pro2 gram authorized under section 117 of 

3 the Federal Water Pollution Control 

4 Act (33 U.S.C. 1267); and 

5 ‘‘(ii) in consultation with— 

6 ‘‘(I) other Federal, State, tribal, 

7 regional, and local agencies; and 

8 ‘‘(II) the private sector. 

9 ‘‘(D) LAND ACQUISITION.—The United 

10 States shall not acquire for the trail any land 

11 or interest in land outside the exterior boundary 

12 of any federally-managed area without the con13 sent of the owner of the land or interest in 

14 land.’’. 

Æ 


HMoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
#### Jesse Giordano, Appellant, v CSC Holdings, Inc., Doing Business as The Wiz, et al., Respondents.

[815 NYS2d 471]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurkin-Torres, J.), dated April 15, 2004, which granted the motion of the defendants, CSC Holdings, Inc., doing business as The Wiz, 86th Street Equity Associates, LLC, and Todd Dworman, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied his cross motion for an award of costs and to impose a sanction against the defendants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff, and the complaint is reinstated.

The Supreme Court’s order, which was issued before the rulings of the Court of Appeals in *Brill v City of New York*(2 NY3d 648 [2004]), *Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.*(3 NY3d 725 [2004]), and *Andrea v Amone, Hedin, Casker, Kennedy & Drake, Architects & Landscape Architects, P.C. (Habiterra Assoc.)*(5 NY3d 514 [2005]), erroneously granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The *949motion was made more than 60 days after the plaintiff filed a note of issue on January 30, 2003, in violation of rule 13 of the Uniform Civil Trial Rules of the Supreme Court, Kings County, and the defendants failed to establish good cause for the delay *(see*CPLR 3212 [a]; *Bevilacqua v City of New York,*21 AD3d 340 [2005]; *First Union Auto Fin., Inc. v Donat,*16 AD3d 372 [2005]; *cf. Brooks v Ross,*24AD3d 589 [2005]).

Under the circumstances presented, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s cross motion for costs and sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 *(see Burns v Palazola,*22 AD3d 779 [2005]).

In light of our determination, we need not consider the parties’ remaining contentions. Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 231 (Thursday, December 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 75175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30277]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0182]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; Procedures for the Safe and Sanitary 
Processing and Importing of Fish and Fishery Products

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Procedures for the Safe and 
Sanitary Processing and Importing of Fish and Fishery Products'' has 
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley, Jr., Office of 
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., 
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of June 18, 2010 (75 
FR 34746), the Agency announced that the proposed information 
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 
U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the 
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0354. 
The approval expires on November 30, 2013. A copy of the supporting 
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet 
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: November 26, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-30277 Filed 12-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Cammarano, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered September 25, 1979, affirmed. No opinion. This case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). Gulotta, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000757545
<NAME> 84A.TXT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         210,541
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  232,806
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               443,347
<PP&E>                                      18,208,392
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,343,438
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,308,301
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,811
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,262,490
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,308,301
<SALES>                                        459,453
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               462,381
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  321,985
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                140,396
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            140,396
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   140,396
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
157 So.2d 232

#### Samuel F. SCHOONMAKER v. The INSURANCE COMPANY OF the STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA et al.

No. 46977.

Nov. 12, 1963.

In re: The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania et al. applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 156 So.2d 82.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law in its judgment.
#### § 3430.1209 Duration of awards.

The term of a grant under this subpart may not exceed 5 years. The duration of individual awards may vary as specified in the RFA and is subject to the availability of appropriations.
161 So.2d 277

#### Woodrow STANSBURY v. ATLANTIC & GULF STEVEDORES, INC.

No. 47160.

March 11, 1964.

In re: Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. 159 So.2d 728.

Writ refused. There appears no error of law in the judgment complained of, in view of the facts found by the Court of Appeal.
#### Krzysztof Dobrowolski, Respondent, v City of New York, Respondent, and New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

[815 NYS2d 469]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated March 2, 2005, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was injured when, while waiting at a bus stop to board a bus operated by the New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the NYCTA), he moved back as the bus approached and fell after stepping into a hole in the sidewalk, which was under construction at the time.

It is well settled that a “transit company is under a duty to provide prospective passengers with a reasonably safe, direct entrance onto the vehicle, clear of any dangerous obstruction or defect which would impede that entrance” *(Blye v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.,*124 AD2d 106, 111 [1987], *affd*72 NY2d 888 [1988]; *see Mahase v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.,*3 AD3d 410 [2004]; *Ausderan v City of New York,*219 AD2d 562 [1995]; *Gross v New York City Tr. Auth.,*256 AD2d 128 [1998]; *Francias v City of New York,*222 AD2d 215 [1995]).

Here, in opposition to the NYCTA’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the NYCTA breached its duty to provide a reasonably safe, direct entrance to the bus *(cf. Meyers v City of New York,*215 AD2d 543 [1995]).

The NYCTA’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

v. CASE NO. 3:20cr40/MCR-6

MARJORIE TURNER

______________________________/

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate 

Judge, to which there have been no timely objections, the plea of guilty of the 

Defendant, MARJORIE TURNER, to Counts One and Nine of the Indictment is 

hereby ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before this Court for sentencing as 

directed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of March 2021.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00040-MCR Document 264 Filed 03/19/21 Page 1 of 1
#### AHEARN et al., Respondents, v. SCHMIDT, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 8, 1906.)

Action by Charles W. S. Ahearn and George Dorrlamm, etc., against George Schmidt.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed, and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event; on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to show that they were the procuring cause of the sale for which they have recovered commissions.
28.203-5 Exclusion of individual sureties.       (a)An individual may be excluded from acting as a surety on bonds submitted by offerors on procurement by the executive branch of the Federal Government, by the acquiring agency's head or designee utilizing the procedures in subpart  9.4. The exclusion shall be for the purpose of protecting the Government.                                          (b)An individual may be excluded for any of the following causes:                                                         (1)Failure to fulfill the obligations under any bond.                                                            (2)Failure to disclose all bond obligations.                                                            (3)Misrepresentation of the value of available assets or outstanding liabilities.                                                            (4)Any false or misleading statement, signature or representation on a bond or affidavit of individual suretyship.                                                            (5)Any other cause affecting responsibility as a surety of such serious and compelling nature as may be determined to warrant exclusion.                                                                             (c)An individual surety excluded pursuant to this section shall be entered as an exclusion in the System for Award Management (see 9.404).                                          (d)Contracting officers shall not accept the bonds of individual sureties whose names appear in an active exclusion record in the System for Award Management (see 9.404) unless the acquiring agency's head or a designee states in writing the compelling reasons justifying acceptance.                                          (e)An exclusion of an individual surety under this section will also preclude such party from acting as a contractor in accordance with subpart  9.4.    **Parent topic:** 28.203 Individual Sureties.
Exhibit 32.1
 
 Statement of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350
 
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, as the chief executive officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ C.E. PorterC.E. PorterChief Executive OfficerMay 16, 2011
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ERNEST R. GIBSON, JR.,

# 281824,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 4:20cv483 -MW/MAF

JOHN LEE,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation, ECF No. 4. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted, as this Court’s 

opinion. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis motion, ECF No. 2, is DENIED. The Clerk 

shall enter judgment stating, “This action is DISMISSED without prejudice

because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he meets the imminent danger exception 

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” The Clerk is directed to enter on the docket that this case 

Case 4:20-cv-00483-MW-MAF Document 5 Filed 11/06/20 Page 1 of 2
2

was dismissed pursuant to § 1915(g). The Clerk shall close the file. 

SO ORDERED on November 6, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00483-MW-MAF Document 5 Filed 11/06/20 Page 2 of 2
CERTIFICATIONS

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2
I, Jose Gustavo Brasil, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of NITAR TECH CORP.

     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

     4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have;

     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

     Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this
quarterly report (the registrant's fourth quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

     5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

     Date: February 26, 2007                         /S/ JOSE GUSTAVO BRASIL
                                                    -------------------------
                                                      Jose Gustavo Brasil
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
§ 58.38 Payment of fees and charges. ( a ) Fees and charges for any inspection or grading service shall be paid by the interested party, making the application for such service, in accordance with the applicable provisions of this section and §§ 58.39 through 58.46 and, if so required by the inspector or grader, such fees and charges shall be paid in advance.
( b ) Fees and charges for any inspection or grading service performed by any inspector or grader who is a salaried employee of the Department shall, unless otherwise required pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, be paid by the interested party making application for such inspection or grading service by check, draft, or money order payable to the Agricultural Marketing Service and remitted promptly to the office indicated on the bill.
( c ) Fees and charges for any inspection or grading service under a cooperative agreement with any State or person shall be paid in accordance with the terms of the cooperative agreement by the interested party making application for the service.
Editorial Note on Part 4290
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

§ 4290.830 Minimum term of Financing. ( a ) *General rule.* The minimum term of each of your Financings is one year.
( b ) *Restrictions on mandatory redemption of Equity Securities.* If you have acquired Equity Securities, options, or warrants on terms that include redemption by the Portfolio Concern, you must not require redemption by the Portfolio Concern within the first year of your acquisition except as permitted in § 4290.850.
( c ) *Special rules for Loans and Debt Securities* — ( 1 ) *Term.* The minimum term for Loans and Debt Securities starts with the first disbursement of the Financing.
( 2 ) *Prepayment.* You must permit voluntary prepayment of Loans and Debt Securities by the Portfolio Concern. You must obtain the Agency's prior written approval of any restrictions on the ability of the Portfolio Concern to prepay other than the imposition of a reasonable prepayment penalty under paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
( 3 ) *Prepayment penalties.* You may charge a reasonable prepayment penalty which must be agreed upon at the time of the Financing. If the Agency determines that a prepayment is unreasonable, you must refund the entire penalty to the Portfolio Concern. A prepayment penalty equal to five percent of the outstanding balance during the first year of any Financing, declining by one percentage point per year through the fifth year, is considered the maximum reasonable amount.
#### § 56.74 Miscellaneous.

The existence of any of the conditions set forth in § 56.24 constituting the basis for the rejection of an application for grading service.

[71 FR 42011, July 24, 2006]