alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Carl J. Iacone, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Greenblott, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 2, 1970, holding claimant ineligible for benefits effective April 25 through June 19, 1966 on the ground he failed to comply with registration requirements. Appellant was employed as a routeman by a newspaper which ceased publication. Although his work terminated about May 10, 1966, he did not file a claim for benefits until the week beginning June 20, 1966. He contended that he did not file his claim for benefits sooner because he was advised by a clerk in the insurance office that there was a seven-week waiting period and he was not offered an application to file. Credibility of the witnesses is within the exclusive province of the board *(Matter of Sehonwald*[Catherwood], 25 A D 2d 461). Whether appellant’s failure to file a claim was due to misinformation supplied by representatives of the Industrial Commissioner is a factual question, also within the exclusive province of the board *(Matter■ off.*
      *591
      *Tummaro*[Catherwood], 29 A D 2d 711). The hoard’s finding that appellant was not misinformed by insurance office staff members and that he did not have good cause for failure to file his claim is supported by substantial evidence *(Matter of Ulrich'*[Catherwood], 26 A D 2d 979). The filing of a claim in accordance with the provisions of the Labor Law and the regulations of the Industrial Commissioner is a necessary prerequisite to eligibility for benefits (Labor Law, § 590, subds. 1, 8; § 596; 12 NYCRR 473.2 [a], [d]). *(Matter of Bescigno*[Catherwood], 24 A D 2d 658.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Greenblott, J.
§ 727.1 What is the purpose and scope of this part? ( a ) The purpose of this part is to establish minimum requirements applicable to each individual granted access to a DOE computer or to information on a DOE computer, including a requirement for written consent to access by an authorized investigative agency to any DOE computer used in the performance of the individual's duties during the term of that individual's employment and for a period of three years thereafter.
( b ) Section 727.4 of this part also applies to any person who uses a DOE computer by sending an e-mail message to such a computer.
HPMSVtypeID yearID HPMSBaseYearVMT baseYearOffNetVMT

10 2024 9375025 0

20 2024 1351346800 0

30 2024 859546895 0

40 2024 5741815 0

50 2024 66113545 0

60 2024 120620820 0
#### BEAUDRY et al., Appellants, v. McKINNON et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 19, 1914.)

Action by William A. Beaudry, in behalf of himself, etc., and another, against John W. McKinnon and others.

H. B. Twombly, of New York City, for appellants.

C. E. Rushmore, of New York City, for respondents.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. See, also, 148 N. Y. Supp. 1105.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S  CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE  THREE  MONTHS  ENDED
SEPTEMBER  27,  1997 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                               0001000371
<NAME>                                              Herff Jones, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1,000
<CURRENCY>                                          U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 JUN-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                    JUN-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                      SEP-27-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                           1.000
<CASH>                                                    2,259
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            42,624
<ALLOWANCES>                                              4,180
<INVENTORY>                                              42,574
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        103,933
<PP&E>                                                   98,475
<DEPRECIATION>                                           47,285
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          159,566
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    82,098
<BONDS>                                                 152,330
<COMMON>                                                  5,694
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                              (83,683)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            159,566
<SALES>                                                  50,064
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         50,064
<CGS>                                                    29,675
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            29,675
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         27,184
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        4,470
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (11,214)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              4,086
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      (7,128)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                             (7,128)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             (3.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (3.57)
                            
                            

</TABLE>
§ 824.9 Hearing Counsel. The Hearing Counsel: ( a ) Represents DOE;
( b ) Consults with the person or the person's counsel prior to the hearing;
( c ) Examines and cross-examines witnesses during the hearing; and
( d ) Enters into a settlement of the enforcement proceeding at any time if settlement is consistent with the objectives of the Act and DOE security requirements.
ORIGINAI 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

PR 22-0005 

IN RE THE MOTION OF ARRON B. NESBITT 

FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF THE STATE 

OF MONTANA 

FILED 

JUN 21 2022 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

Arron B. Nesbitt has filed a motion for admission to the Bar of the State of Montana 

pursuant to Rule V of the Rules for Admission, Admission on Motion. The Bar Admissions 

Administrator of the State Bar of Montana has informed the Court that the Commission on 

Character and Fitness has certified that Nesbitt has provided the necessary documentation 

and has satisfied the requirements prerequisite to admission on motion under Rule V. 

Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon payment of any application fees and 

completion of any other processing requirements as set forth by the Bar Admissions 

Administrator, Arron B. Nesbitt may be sworn in to the practice of law in the State of 

Montana. Arrangements for swearing in may be made by contacting the office of the Clerk 

of the Montana Supreme Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to Petitioner and to the State 

Bar of Montana. s_>4 

DATED this et day of June, 2022. 

Chief Justice 

06/21/2022

Case Number: PR 22-0005
2 

Justices
§ 727.6 What are the obligations of a DOE contractor? ( a ) A DOE contractor must ensure that neither its employees nor the employees of any of its subcontractors has access to information on a DOE computer unless the DOE contractor has obtained a written acknowledgment and consent by each contractor or subcontractor employee that complies with the requirements of § 727.5 of this part.
( b ) A DOE contractor must maintain a file of original written acknowledgments and consents executed by its employees and all subcontractors employees that comply with the requirements of § 727.5 of this part.
( c ) Upon demand by the cognizant DOE contracting officer, a DOE contractor must provide an opportunity for a DOE official to inspect the file compiled under this section and to copy any portion of the file.
( d ) If a DOE contractor violates the requirements of this section with regard to a DOE computer with Restricted Data or other classified information, then the DOE contractor may be assessed a civil penalty or a reduction in fee pursuant to section 234B of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2282b).
§ 600.316 Audits. ( a ) Any recipient that expends $500,000 or more in a year under Federal awards must have an audit made for that year by an independent auditor, in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. If a recipient is currently performing under a Federal award that requires an audit by its Federal cognizant agency, that auditor must perform the independent audit. The audit generally should be made a part of the regularly scheduled, annual audit of the recipient's financial statements. However, it may be more economical in some cases to have Federal awards separately audited, and a recipient may elect to do so, unless that option is precluded by award terms and conditions or by Federal laws or regulations applicable to the program(s) under which the awards were made.
( b ) The auditor must determine and report on whether: ( 1 ) The recipient has an internal control structure that provides reasonable assurance that it is managing Federal awards in compliance with Federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the awards.
( 2 ) Based on a sampling of Federal award expenditures, the recipient has complied with laws, regulations, and award terms that may have a direct and material effect on Federal awards.
( c ) The recipient must make the auditor's report available to the DOE contracting officers whose awards are affected.
( d ) Before requesting an audit in addition to the independent audit, the contracting officer must: ( 1 ) Consider whether the independent audit satisfies his or her requirements;
( 2 ) Limit the scope of such additional audit to areas not adequately addressed by the independent audit; and
( 3 ) If DOE is not the Federal agency with the predominant fiscal interest in the recipient, coordinate with the agency that has the predominant fiscal interest.
( e ) The recipient and its Federal cognizant agency for audit should develop a coordinated audit approach to minimize duplication of audit work.
( f ) Audit costs (including a reasonable allocation of the costs of the audit of the recipient's financial statement, based on the relative benefit to the Government and the recipient) are allowable costs of DOE awards.
Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 17 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 1 of 1
H. Res. 229 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 28, 2017. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1430) to 

prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon science that is not transparent or reproducible. All points of order against consideration of the bill 

are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points 

of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 

on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided 

and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 

the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology; and (2) 

one motion to recommit. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Exhibit 32



                        President's Written Certification
                             Of Financial Statements
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Statute 1350



     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Statute 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity
as president of 4net Software, Inc. (the "Company") that

     (a)  the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the period
          ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of
          Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

     (b)  the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end
          of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such
          period.



Dated: February 13, 2007



                                            /s/ Steven N. Bronson
                                            ----------------------------------
                                            Steven N. Bronson, President
§ 19.8 Information collection requirements: OMB approval. ( a ) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has submitted the information collection requirements contained in this part to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.*). The NRC 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 approved the information collection requirements contained in this part under control number 3150-0044.
( b ) The approved information collection requirements contained in this part appear in §§ 19.12, 19.13, 19.16, and 19.31.
[62 FR 52185, Oct. 6, 1997, as amended at 85 FR 65661, Oct. 16, 2020]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 81606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32502]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


FDIC Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion (ComE-IN); Notice 
of Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

ACTION: Notice of renewal of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Economic 
Inclusion.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (``FACA''), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and after consultation with the 
General Services Administration, the Chairman of the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation has determined that renewal of the FDIC Advisory 
Committee on Economic Inclusion (``the Committee'') is in the public 
interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the 
FDIC by law. The Committee has been a successful undertaking by the 
FDIC and has provided valuable feedback to the agency on important 
initiatives focused on expanding access to banking services by 
underserved populations. The Committee will continue to provide advice 
and recommendations on initiatives to expand access to banking services 
by underserved populations. The Committee will continue to review 
various issues that may include, but not be limited to, basic retail 
financial services such as check cashing, money orders, remittances, 
stored value cards, short-term loans, savings accounts, and other 
services to promote asset accumulation and financial stability. The 
structure and responsibilities of the Committee are unchanged from when 
it was originally established in November 2006. The Committee will 
continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Committee 
Management Officer of the FDIC, at (202) 898-7043.

    Dated: December 21, 2010.
Valerie J. Best,
Assistant Committee Management Officer, Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2010-32502 Filed 12-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7201 

To amend title 35, United States Code, to include the exclusive economic 

zone as part of the United States for patent infringement, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 29, 2018 

Mr. SMITH of Texas (for himself, Mr. OLSON, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. POE

of Texas, Mr. RATCLIFFE, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, and Mr. 

CUELLAR) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 35, United States Code, to include the exclusive economic zone as part of the United States for 

patent infringement, 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. PATENT INFRINGEMENT IN EXCLUSIVE ECO4 NOMIC ZONE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

5 (a) AMENDMENT.—Chapter 10 of title 35, United 

6 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing new section: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 7201 IH

1 ‘‘§ 106. Inventions in the exclusive economic zone 

2 ‘‘Any act occurring on or below the waters of the ex3 clusive economic zone of the United States established by 

4 Presidential Proclamation 5030 of March 10, 1983 (16 

5 U.S.C. 1453 note), including activity on the seabed of such 

6 zone, that is related to the economic exploitation of, or 

7 exploration for, natural resources or marine scientific re8 search shall be considered an act occurring within the 

9 United States for the purposes of section 271.’’. 

10 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.— 

11 The table of sections for chapter 10 of title 35, United 

12 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol13 lowing new item: 

‘‘106. Inventions in the exclusive economic zone.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7717

ROY GAREY LINDSEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL W. MOORE; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-126-10-21BD) Submitted: March 31, 1999 Decided: July 29, 1999 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy Garey Lindsey, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina; Robert Eric Petersen, William Ansel Collins, Jr., Byron Ronald Roberts, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Lindsey v. Moore , No. CA-96- 126-10-21BD (D.S.C. July 30, 1998). 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Malik Muhammad, Appellant.

Submitted December 31, 2007;

decided January 8, 2008

Reported below, 41 AD3d 738.

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.

Judge Jones taking no part.
§ 60.32 Conditions of construction authorization. ( a ) A construction authorization shall include such conditions as the Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health and safety of the public, the common defense and security, or environmental values.
( b ) The Commission will incorporate in the construction authorization provisions requiring DOE to furnish periodic or special reports regarding: ( 1 ) Progress of construction,
( 2 ) any data about the site obtained during construction which are not within the predicted limits upon which the facility design was based,
( 3 ) any deficiencies in design and construction which, if uncorrected, could adversely affect safety at any future time, and
( 4 ) results of research and development programs being conducted to resolve safety questions.
( c ) The construction authorization will include restrictions on subsequent changes to the features of the geologic repository and the procedures authorized. The restrictions that may be imposed under this paragraph can include measures to prevent adverse effects on the geologic setting as well as measures related to the design and construction of the geologic repository operations area. These restrictions will fall into three categories of descending importance to public health and safety as follows: ( 1 ) Those features and procedures which may not be changed without: (i) 60 days prior notice to the Commission (ii) 30 days notice of opportunity for a prior hearing, and (iii) prior Commission approval;
( 2 ) those features and procedures which may not be changed without (i) 60 days prior notice to the Commission, and (ii) prior Commission approval; and
( 3 ) those features and procedures which may not be changed without 60 days notice to the Commission. Features and procedures falling in paragraph (c)(3) of this section may not be changed without prior Commission approval if the Commission, after having received the required notice, so orders.
( d ) A construction authorization shall be subject to the limitation that a license to receive and possess source, special nuclear, or byproduct material at the geologic repository operations area shall not be issued by the Commission until ( 1 ) the DOE has updated its application as specified in § 60.24, and
( 2 ) the Commission has made the findings stated in § 60.41.
[46 FR 13980, Feb. 25, 1981, as amended at 48 FR 28221, June 21, 1983]
2007-1840.

#### State ex rel. Baker v. Tri-Rivers Educational Computer Assn.

In Mandamus. On respondent’s motion to dismiss and relator’s motion to compel discovery. Motion to dismiss granted. Motion to compel discovery denied as moot. Cause dismissed.

Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., and Cupp, J., dissent and would grant an alternative writ.
227 So.2d 594

#### Patricia WELCH et al. v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 50119.

Nov. 12, 1969.

In re: The Travelers Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 225 So.2d 623.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
§ 948.104 Term of office. ( a ) Pursuant to § 948.55, the two-year term of office for area committee members and alternates shall be as follows: ( 1 ) Area No. 1 and Area No. 2 shall begin June 1 and end May 31 of the second year following;
( 2 ) Area No. 3 shall begin May 1 and end April 30 of the second year following.
( b ) The one-year term of office of Colorado Potato Committee members shall begin as of June 1 of each year.
[52 FR 12515, Apr. 17, 1987] Effective Date Note
Effective Date Note: At 57 FR 61774, Dec. 29, 1992, in § 948.104, in paragraph (a)(1), the words “Area No. 1 and” were suspended indefinitely.