alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(November 22, 2005)

#### In the Matter of Vanessa B., a Child Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Myra B., Also Known as Myra R., Appellant; Abbott House et al., Respondent.

[808 NYS2d 10]

*274Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about April 26, 2004, which denied respondent’s motion to vacate the court’s prior order, entered December 10, 2003 upon respondent’s default, which, upon findings that respondent had permanently neglected the subject child, terminated respondent’s parental rights respecting the child and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency for the purpose of adoption, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, respondent’s motion to vacate granted and the matter remanded for a new hearing.

Respondent’s vacatur motion was denied on the ground that she had failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her belated 10:20 a.m. appearance for a hearing which was called at 9:30 a.m. The court disbelieved respondent’s affidavit statements that she was delayed by bringing another child to school that morning and then by a long line outside the courthouse. A credibility finding made on an affidavit is not entitled to deference on appeal, in contrast to a credibility finding concerning live testimony, and respondent sufficiently alleged a potentially meritorious defense to the allegations used to terminate her parental rights. Indeed, respondent explained that, had she testified, she would have controverted critical agency allegations about her willingness to cooperate, especially since she remains the custodian of children older and younger than Vanessa. This matter would be appropriately resolved after a hearing at which respondent can participate since we favor “the resolution of disputes on their merits, especially where a fundamental parental right ... is concerned” *(Mann v Mann,*149 AD2d 669, 671 [1989]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Sullivan and Nardelli, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

     The undersigned Chief Executive Officer of First Keystone Financial, Inc.
(the "Registrant") hereby certifies that the Registrant's Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Registrant.


                                        /s/ Thomas M. Kelly
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name: Thomas M. Kelly
                                        Title: President and Chief Executive
                                               Officer

Date: May 15, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to First Keystone Financial, Inc. and will
be retained by First Keystone Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 155 (Thursday, August 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40827-40828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19402]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0681]


Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the Offshore Supply 
Vessel HOS SWEET WATER

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

[[Page 40828]]

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that a Certificate of Alternative 
Compliance was issued for the offshore supply vessel HOS SWEET WATER as 
required by 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.

DATES: The Certificate of Alternative Compliance was issued on July 6, 
2009.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this notice is available for inspection or 
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this 
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov, 
inserting USCG-2009-0681 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking 
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice, 
call CWO2 David Mauldin, District Eight, Prevention Branch, U.S. Coast 
Guard, telephone 504-671-2153. If you have questions on viewing or 
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    The offshore supply vessel HOS SWEET WATER will be used for 
offshore supply operations. The Certificate of Alternative Compliance 
allows for the horizontal distance between the forward and aft masthead 
lights to be 21[min]11<gr-thn-eq>. Placing the aft masthead light at 
the horizontal distance from the forward masthead light as required by 
Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of the 72 COLREGS, and Annex I, Section 
84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act, would result in an aft masthead light 
location directly over the cargo deck where it would interfere with 
loading and unloading operations.
    The Certificate of Alternative Compliance allows for the horizontal 
separation of the forward and aft masthead lights to deviate from the 
requirements of Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of 72 COLREGS, and Annex I, 
Section 84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c), and 33 
CFR 81.18.

    Dated: July 27, 2009.
J.W. Johnson,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Inspections and Investigations 
Branch, by Direction of the Commander Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E9-19402 Filed 8-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
www.gpo.gov

### §6044. News bureaus in Cuba

#### (a) Establishment of news bureaus

The President is authorized to establish and implement an exchange of news bureaus between the United States and Cuba, if the exchange meets the following conditions:

(1) The exchange is fully reciprocal.

(2) The Cuban Government agrees not to interfere with the establishment of news bureaus or with the movement in Cuba of journalists of any United States-based news organizations, including Radio Marti and Television Marti.

(3) The Cuban Government agrees not to interfere with decisions of United States-based news organizations with respect to individuals assigned to work as journalists in their news bureaus in Cuba.

(4) The Department of the Treasury is able to ensure that only accredited journalists regularly employed with a news gathering organization travel to Cuba under this subsection.

(5) The Cuban Government agrees not to interfere with the transmission of telecommunications signals of news bureaus or with the distribution within Cuba of publications of any United States-based news organization that has a news bureau in Cuba.

#### (b) Assurance against espionage

In implementing this section, the President shall take all necessary steps to ensure the safety and security of the United States against espionage by Cuban journalists it believes to be working for the intelligence agencies of the Cuban Government.

#### (c) Fully reciprocal

As used in subsection (a)(1) of this section, the term “fully reciprocal” means that all news services, news organizations, and broadcasting services, including such services or organizations that receive financing, assistance, or other support from a governmental or official source, are permitted to establish and operate a news bureau in the United States and Cuba.

(Pub. L. 104–114, title I, §114, Mar. 12, 1996, 110 Stat. 803.)
#### § 0.206 Strikes.

Employees shall not participate in a labor strike, work stoppage, or work slowdown against the government.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF 10-Q REPORT

OF

WESTERN GAS RESOURCES, INC.

 

FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2004

 

1.             The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Western Gas Resources, Inc.  This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  This Certification accompanies the 10-Q Report of Western Gas Resources, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2004.

 

2.             We certify that such 10-Q Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such 10-Q Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Western Gas Resources, Inc.

 

This Certification is executed as of November 22, 2004.

 
|   | /s/ PETER A. DEA                             |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Peter A. Dea, Chief Executive Officer        |
|   | and President                                |
|   |                                         |
|   |  /s/ WILLIAM J. KRYSIAK                 |   |
|   | William J. Krysiak, Executive Vice President |
|   | and Chief Financial Officer                  |

 

1

----
39584.

#### MORRISON v. BOWEN, Trustee, et al.

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

1. A general demurrer admits as true facts properly pleaded, but not mere conclusions of the pleader where facts are not averred upon which the conclusions are supposed to rest. *Huson Ice & Coal Co. v. City of Coving*ton, 178 Ga. 6, 10 (172 SE 56); *Yatesville Banking Co. v. Fourth Nat. Bank,*17 Ga. App. 420 (87 SE 606); *Presley v. Presley,*77 Ga. App. 99 (47 SE2d 647); *Dowling v. Southwell,*95 Ga. App. 29 (96 SE2d 903); *Savannah News-Press, Inc. v. Harley,*100 Ga. App. 387 (111 SE2d 259).

2. In *Capers v. Ball,*211 Ga. 502, 505 (87 SE2d 85) it was held that a recital in a bill of exceptions that it had been tendered “within the time provided by law” is a mere conclusion and not an affirmative showing of anything. Similarly, the recital in the petition that the plaintiff “within the time provided by law renews her case pursuant to *Code*§ 3-808” is a conclusion and fails to show affirmatively that the plaintiff has a right within the purview of that Code section to renew her action. In order to show the right to renew the suit within six months after the dismissal of a prior suit on the same cause of action, when such right is relied upon to relieve the plaintiff of the bar of the statute of limitation, it is necessary for the renewal petition to show affirmatively that the former petition was not a void suit, that it is such a valid suit as may be renewed under *Code*§ 3-808, that it is based upon substantially the same cause of action, and that it is not a renewal of a previous action which was dismissed on its merits so that the dismissal would act as a bar to the rebringing of the petition. *Talley v. Commercial Credit Co.,*173 Ga. 828 (2) (161 SE 832) ; *Barber v. Rome,*39 Ga. App. 225 (146 SE 856); *Ternest v. Ga. Coast &c. R.,*19 Ga. App. 94 (90 SE 1040); *Laughlin Motors v. General Finance*&c. *Corp.,*101 Ga. App. 846 (115 SE2d 574).

3. The petition here which was filed in the Superior Court of DeKalb County merely alleges in paragraph 15 that the plaintiff “filed this action originally on September 21, 1954, in this court against the same defendants, said case being No. 18,634, and thereafter on May 29, 1961, a judgment was entered dismissing said case, and now within the time provided *465by law plaintiff renews her case.” Under the rules of law enunciated in the preceding headnotes this allegation was insufficient, and the general demurrer to the petition was properly sustained.

Decided July 2, 1962

Rehearing denied July 31, 1962.

*Sheats, Parker & Webb, Guy Parker,*for plaintiff in error.

*Zachary & Hunter,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Eberhardt and Russell, JJ., concur.*
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-89,380-01

EX P ARTE JOHNNY LEE DAVIS, Appli cant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. A-16-5063- CR(HC1) IN THE 36T H DISTRICT COURT

F ROM ARA NSAS COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Appl icant was convicted of criminal solicitation and sentenc ed to eighteen year s’ imprisonmen t
. The Thirteenth Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Davis v. State , No. 13 -1 7 -0 0 1 0 3 -C R (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi

- EdinburgJ uly

26, 2018) (not designated f or publication). Applicant contends, among other things, that his ap p ell ate counsel rende red ineffe ctive assistance beca

use counse l failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been af firmed and fa iled to advise him of his r ight to pe tition pro se for discretionar y revie w. We remande d this2

application to the trial c ourt for f indings of f

act a nd conclusions of law
. The trial court held a habea s h earing , hear d live testimony and considere d documentar y evidenc e. Ba sed on that testimony and evidenc e, the trial court has enter ed finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that appellate counsel failed t o timely notify Applicant that his conviction ha d been affir med and failed to advise him of hi s rig ht to petiti o n fo r d i s cretionary revie w pro se . Ex parte W ilson , 956 S.W .2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We find, there fore , that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition for discretionar

y revie w of t h e j u d gm en t o f the Thirteenth Court of Appea ls in Cause No. 13-17- 00103-CR that aff

irmed his conviction in Cause No. A-16-5063- CR from the 36th District Court of Ara nsas County
. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionar y revie w with this Court within 30 day s of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues. Applicant' s rema ining claims are dismiss ed. See Ex parte Torres , 9 4 3 S
. W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

Deliver ed: J uly

3, 2019 Do not publish
IIA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 69

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 8, 1995

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and

Administration

JOINT RESOLUTION

Providing for the reappointment of Homer Alfred Neal as

a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Stat4 utes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on

5 the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in
2

HJ 69 RFS

1 the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by

2 reason of the expiration of the term of Homer Alfred Neal

3 of Michigan on December 6, 1995, is filled by the re4 appointment of the incumbent for a term of six years, ef5 fective December 7, 1995.

Passed the House of Representatives November 7,

1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 97 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 97

  Expressing the sense of the Congress relating to the abduction and 
  detainment of Donald Hutchings of the State of Washington and four 
             Western Europeans in Jammu and Kashmir, India.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 4, 1995

Mr. Pallone (for himself, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Andrews, Mr. 
 Brown of Ohio, Mr. Levin, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Ney, Mr. LoBiondo, and Mr. 
 Nethercutt) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
          referred to the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the Congress relating to the abduction and 
  detainment of Donald Hutchings of the State of Washington and four 
             Western Europeans in Jammu and Kashmir, India.
Whereas the Al-Faran, a militant organization that seeks to merge Kashmir with 
        Pakistan, has waged a 5-year war against the Government of India;
Whereas during the week of July 2, 1995, the Al-Faran abducted Donald Hutchings 
        of the State of Washington and four Western Europeans in the territory 
        of Jammu and Kashmir, India;
Whereas the Al-Faran have threatened to kill Donald Hutchings and the Western 
        European hostages unless the Government of India agrees to release 20 
        suspected guerrillas from its jails; and
Whereas the Al-Faran continues to hold Donald Hutchings and the four Western 
        European hostage against their will: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that--
            (1) the militant organization Al-Faran immediately release 
        Donald Hutchings and four Western Europeans from captivity; and
            (2) the Al-Faran and their supporters cease and desist from 
        all acts of hostage-taking and other violent acts within the 
        State of Jammu and Kashmir, India.
                                 <all>
```
§ 1.6302-4 Voluntary payments by electronic funds transfer. ( a ) *Electronic funds transfer.* Any person may voluntarily remit by electronic funds transfer any payment of tax imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code, including any payment of estimated tax. Such payment must be made in the manner set forth in published guidance, publications, forms and instructions.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section applies to deposits and payments made after December 31, 2010.
[T.D. 9507, 75 FR 75900, Dec. 7, 2010]
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 115 Engrossed Amendment House (EAH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     November 10, 1995.

    Resolved, That the House agree to the amendments of the Senate numbered 1 
and 2 to the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 115) entitled ``Joint resolution making 
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and for other 
purposes.''.
    Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the Senate numbered 3 to 
the aforesaid joint resolution with the following

                               AMENDMENT:

    Delete the matter proposed by said amendment, and beginning on page 15, line 
1 of the House engrossed joint resolution (H.J. Res. 115), strike all down to 
and including line 7, on page 36, and redesignate title IV as title III, and 
renumber sections accordingly.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H.J. Res 115

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT

                                   TO

                            SENATE AMENDMENT
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934 FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,217,881
<SECURITIES>                                 1,803,084
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,493,003
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,041,630
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          283,612
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,187,064
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,041,630
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                95,567
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               299,806
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (953,168)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (953,168)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (953,168)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (25.35)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (25.35)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>EPS IS NET LOSS PER $1,000 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNIT.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### Paxil Cohen, Appellant, et al., Plaintiffs, v Roger Kim, Respondent.

[805 NYS2d 97]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated November 4, 2004, which denied the plaintiffs’ application to remove a negligence action pending in the Civil Court, Queens County, to the Supreme Court, Queens County, and for leave to amend the complaint to increase the ad damnum clause.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ application to remove their action from the Civil Court, Queens County, to the Supreme Court, Queens County *(see*CPLR 325 [b]), and for leave to amend the complaint to increase the ad damnum clause *(see*CPLR 3025 [b]). To demonstrate their entitlement to this relief, the plaintiffs were required to submit evidence showing the merits of the case, the reasons for the delay in asserting the present claims, and that the increase in damages resulted from facts that only recently came to their attention *(see Barsoum v Wilson,*255 AD2d 537 [1998]; *Lopez v Alexander,*251 AD2d 297 [1998]; *Gambino v Swan,*152 AD2d 620 [1989]). Furthermore, the plaintiffs were required to submit a physician’s affirmation specifying the claimed change in the injured plaintiffs condition, any injuries which had not been considered previously, or the extent to which the condition had worsened *(see Joefield v*
      *603
      *New York City Tr. Auth.,*11 AD3d 586, 587 [2004]; *Savory v Romex Realty Corp.,*194 AD2d 601, 602 [1993]; *Fallica v Ort,*183 AD2d 806 [1992]).

The plaintiffs failed to give a reason for the delay in seeking an increase in the damages claimed for the personal injuries of the plaintiff Paul Cohen, or to establish that the requested increase was warranted by facts that only recently came to their attention *(see Joefield v New York City Tr. Auth., supra).*Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to establish through medical evidence that the condition of Paul Cohen had changed since the filing of the original summons and complaint, that he had any causally related injuries not previously considered, or the extent to which his condition had worsened. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the application. Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.