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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1163 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                                H. R. 1163

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To authorize the exchange of National Park Service land in the Fire 
   Island National Seashore in the State of New York for land in the 
            Village of Patchogue, Suffolk County, New York.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1163

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To authorize the exchange of National Park Service land in the Fire 
   Island National Seashore in the State of New York for land in the 
            Village of Patchogue, Suffolk County, New York.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF EXCHANGE.

    The Secretary of the Interior may exchange all right, title, and 
interest of the United States in and to certain National Park Service 
lands in the Fire Island National Seashore in the State of New York, 
described in section 2, for all right, title, and interest of the 
Village of Patchogue, Suffolk County, New York, in and to certain lands 
in the Village of Patchogue, described in section 2, without further 
consideration.

SEC. 2. DESCRIPTION OF LANDS TO BE EXCHANGED.

    (a) National Park Lands.--The National Park Service lands in the 
Fire Island National Seashore, in the State of New York, referred to in 
section 1 are the lands generally depicted on the map entitled ``Fire 
Island National Seashore Land Exchange--Proposed'', dated October 1994.
    (b) Village of Patchogue Lands.--The lands in the Village of 
Patchogue, Suffolk County, New York, referred to in section 1 are the 
lands generally depicted on the map entitled ``Village of Patchogue 
Land Exchange--Proposed'', dated October 1994.
    (c) Maps.--The maps referred to in subsections (a) and (b) shall be 
on file and available for inspection in the Office of the Director of 
the National Park Service.

SEC. 3. LANDS ACQUIRED BY SECRETARY.

    The lands in the Village of Patchogue that are acquired by the 
Secretary of the Interior under section 1 shall be added to and 
administered as part of the Fire Island National Seashore.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 7, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
§ 15.737-14 Answer. ( a ) *Filing.* The respondent's answer shall be filed in writing within the time specified in the complaint, unless on application the time is extended by the Director or the Administrative Law Judge. The answer shall be filed in duplicate with the Director.
( b ) *Contents.* The answer shall contain a statement of facts which constitute the grounds of defense, and it shall specifically admit or deny each allegation set forth in the complaint, except that the respondent shall not deny a material allegation in the complaint which he/she knows to be true, or state that he/she is without sufficient information to form a belief when in fact he/she possesses such information. The respondent may also state affirmatively special matters of defense.
( c ) *Failure to deny or answer allegations in the complaint.* Every allegation in the complaint which is not denied in the answer shall be deemed to be admitted and may be considered as proved, and no further evidence in respect of such allegation need be adduced at a hearing. Failure to file an answer within the time prescribed in the notice to the respondent, except as the time for answer is extended by the Director or the Administrative Law Judge, shall constitute an admission of the allegations of the complaint and a waiver of hearing, and the Administrative Law Judge may make his/her decision by default without a hearing or further procedure.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 28, 2014

p0224 

# Order

Clerk February 28, 2014

148166 & (21)

JOSEPH ZIEGLER,

Petitio ner

- Appellant,

v SC: 148166

COA: 314686

Ingham CC: 12

- 000449

- AA

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH,

Respondent

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to strike is DENIED. The application for leave

to appeal the October 17, 2013 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed

by t his Court.
# CI2020212EN.01000701.xml

| 26.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 212/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 212/7

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 24 June 2020

adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 5 of the European Union for the financial year 2020

(2020/C 212 I/02)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

Having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (1), and in particular Article 44 thereof,

Whereas:

| — | the Union’s budget for the financial year 2020 was definitively adopted on 27 November 2019 (2), |
| --- | --- |

—

the Union’s budget for the financial year 2020 was definitively adopted on 27 November 2019 (2),

| — | on 3 June 2020, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 5 to the general budget for the financial year 2020, |
| --- | --- |

—

on 3 June 2020, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 5 to the general budget for the financial year 2020,

| — | it is important to enable a swift adoption of draft amending budget No 5/2020 to be able to continue humanitarian support to refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey without interruption. Therefore, it is justified to shorten, in accordance with Article 3(3) of the Council’s Rules of Procedure, the eight-week period for the information of national Parliaments laid down in Article 4 of Protocol No 1, |
| --- | --- |

—

it is important to enable a swift adoption of draft amending budget No 5/2020 to be able to continue humanitarian support to refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey without interruption. Therefore, it is justified to shorten, in accordance with Article 3(3) of the Council’s Rules of Procedure, the eight-week period for the information of national Parliaments laid down in Article 4 of Protocol No 1,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Council's position on draft amending budget No 5 of the European Union for the financial year 2020 was adopted on 24 June 2020.

The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council's website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Brussels, 24 June 2020.

For the Council

The President

A. METELKO-ZGOMBIĆ

---

(1)  OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 57, 27.2.2020, p. 1.

2

---
- Office Home
- About Us
- Key Topics

HomeEnvironment...About Us

# 									About Us							

Office of Global Change

The Office of Global Change in the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES/EGC), in coordination with the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate (SPEC), is responsible for the implementation and management of U.S. international climate change policy, climate foreign assistance programs, and strategic climate bilateral and multilateral partnerships.

OES/EGC represents the United States in negotiations under the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and in climate-related negotiations in other international fora, such as the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Maritime Organization, the G7, and the G20. The office also leads U.S. government participation in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which assesses scientific and technical information related to climate change. In addition to informing policy, OES/EGC oversees U.S. foreign assistance programs globally supporting clean energy development and deployment, enhancing adaptation and resilience to climate change, and reducing emissions from deforestation and other land uses, while conserving and restoring ecosystems. The office undertakes strategic planning, budgeting, project development, and monitoring and evaluation of OES-funded climate programs.

To reach the Office of Global Change, please email **ClimateComms@State.gov**.

## Related Articles

-  											 													About Us			
Read more
 

Back to Top
From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: "Smith, James R. (Randy)" <JRSmith@rrienergy.com>

Date: 7/26/2010 11:26 AM

Subject: Re: RRI Request for ICR Extension

Attachments: pic05786.jpg; pic12263.jpg; RRI corporate Extension Request Letter.pdf

Greetings,

EPA has reviewed your extension request for the steam electric effluent

guidelines questionnaire for the following RRI Energy Inc. facilities:

 Avon Lake Plant - replied to Daniel A. Rogatto on July 20, 2010

 Brunot Island - replied to Rocco Tondo on July 20, 2010

 Cheswick Power Plant - replied to Daniel Griffin on July 20, 2010

 Choctaw - replied to Howard Holder on July 20, 2010

 Conemaugh - replied to Richard Beer on July 19, 2010

 Coolwater - replied to Stephen Swift on July 22, 2010

 Elrama Power Plant - replied to Rocco Tondo on July 20, 2010

 Hunterstown

 Indian River

 Keystone - replied to James Lafontaine on July 20, 2010

 Mandalay - replied to Thomas A. Di Ciolli on July 21, 2010

 New Castle Plant - replied to Joseph R. Dulovich on July 21, 2010

 Niles - replied to Rocco Tondo on July 20, 2010

 Portland - replied to William H. Wood on July 22, 2010

 Seward - replied to Gregory J. Mitchell on July 20, 2010

 Shawville

 Titus - replied to Jeffrey A. Marks on July 20, 2010

Plants that have not been replied individually are addressed in this

response. The deadline for your plant to submit Version 1 or Version 2

of the completed questionnaire is extended to October 15, 2010. Please

note that the deadline for Part G, if applicable, is unchanged and

remains 120 days after receipt of the questionnaire. No extensions are

granted for Versions 3 or 4 of the questionnaire; the deadline for

plants receiving these questionnaires remains 90 days after receipt.

If you need assistance during the completion of the steam electric

questionnaire, please contact the steam electric helpline via e-mail at

steamhelp@erg.com or by phone at 1-877-353-7560.

Sincerely,

(Embedded image moved to file: pic05786.jpg)

 

 From: "Smith, James R. (Randy)" <JRSmith@rrienergy.com> 

 To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

 Date: 06/25/2010 12:22 PM 

 Subject: RRI Request for ICR Extension 
 (Embedded image moved to file: pic12263.jpg)

 Alicea, please find attached RRI correspondence for EPA’s consideration

 to extend the deadline to complete and comply for the RRI

 steam-electric generating facilities Effluent ICR requirements.

 If there are any questions, do not hesitate to contact me.

 Randy Smith

 Engineering & Technical Services

 832-357-4632 (NEW)

 832-357-7420 Fax

 (See attached file: RRI corporate Extension Request Letter.pdf)
##### 



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
  
    
    the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
 Dated: November 7, 2006/s/ Donald M. Earhart

Donald M. EarhartChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ James R. Talevich

James R. TalevichChief Financial Officer
 Note:
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to I-Flow Corporation and will
be retained by I-Flow Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CURRENCY>                                     USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1838
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1838
<PP&E>                                         154175
<DEPRECIATION>                                 104411
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 51602
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          92905
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4460
<OTHER-SE>                                     (45763)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   51602
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               5916
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5916)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5916)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5916)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.0)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.0)



</TABLE>
#### Jin Ming He, Appellant, v Jong Tien Ho et al., Respondents.

[804 NYS2d 780]

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County *525(Polizzi, J.), dated March 30, 2005, as denied that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment, and granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Courts shall enforce the intent of the parties as expressed by the plain language of their contracts *(see W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri,*77 NY2d 157, 162 [1990]). Paragraphs 16 and 21 (b) of the parties’ contract, read together, expressly provide that if the defendants (hereinafter the sellers), inter alia, were unable to convey title free of tenancies, and if the plaintiff (hereinafter the purchaser) was unwilling to waive same, the sellers could pursue two contractual options. One option, initially undertaken here, was to adjourn the closing for up to 60-day intervals, during which time the sellers would endeavor to “remove, remedy, discharge or comply with such Defects.” The second option, which was ultimately undertaken, was for the sellers to cancel the contract “at Seller’s sole election” either instead of or after 60-day extensions of the closing.

Here, the sellers attempted to evict a tenant from the premises but were unable to do so for an extended period of time, despite the commencement of holdover proceedings. The purchaser refused to accept title that was subject to the tenancy. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that the sellers were within their contractual right to elect to cancel the contract and to direct the return of the purchaser’s down payment. H. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Dillon, JJ., concur.
#### McRAE *v.*BARBER.

1. Taxation — Actions—Trespass—Tax Title — Notice — Re'DEMPTION.

Ejectment lies in favor of the owner of lands surreptitiously occupied by a tax title purchaser who has failed to give due notice to redeem under Act No. 229, Pub. Acts 1897, which was in force at the time of purchase.

2. Same.

The possession of such tax purchaser is a mere trespass.

Error to Ogemaw; Sharpe, J.

Submitted April 3, 1912.

(Docket No. 24.)

Decided July 11, 1912.

Ejectment by John McRae and others against William Barber and another. A judgment for plaintiffs on a verdict directed by the court is reviewed by defendants on writ of error.

Affirmed.

*F. L. Snodgrass,*for appellants.

*William T. Yeo,*for appellees.

Brooke, J.

This case has been in this court before and will be found reported at 167 Mich. 314 (133 N. W. 12). We there held that defendants were obliged to give notice under Act No. 229, Pub. Acts 1897, and that the notices relied upon by defendants were defective in certain particulars there pointed out. Upon the second trial the plaintiffs made proof of ownership under the original title as they did at the first trial. No evidence was offered by defendants disputing the claim of title established by plaintiffs. Nor at this hearing was any evidence introduced by defendants showing, or tending to show, a compliance with the terms of the statute in force at the time of the purchase relative to notice of reconveyance.

*112It is clear that defendants are in possession of the property in question under tax deeds. It is equally clear that they obtained such possession surreptitiously, ousting the plaintiffs who were in actual occupancy, before complying with the applicable statutory requirements. Under such circumstances, this court has frequently held possession to amount to no more than a trespass. *Corrigan*v. Hinkley, 135 Mich. 135 (83 N. W. 1030); *Huron Land Co.*v. *Robarge,*138 Mich. 686 (87 N. W. 1033); *Powell*v. *Pierce,*168 Mich. 437 (134 N. W. 446).

In the case last mentioned it was held that the owner of unoccupied and uncultivated lands, whose title had been twice acquired by the State in tax proceedings which were not assailed, could not maintain ejectment against a trespasser in possession under a tax deed.

The propriety of the remedy in the case at bar is not affected by that decision as the lands here in question were occupied and, to some extent, cultivated for several years prior to the commencement of the suit. The record indicates that plaintiffs stand ready to redeem from the tax title purchase. It further shows that a tender of $800 was made for that purpose by them to Geo. Thayer, defendants’ grantor. The exact amount necessary to redeem is simply a matter of computation under the statute. A verdict in favor of plaintiffs was properly directed.

The judgment is affirmed.

' Moore, O. J., and Steere, McAlvay, Stone, and Ostrander, JJ., concurred. Blair and Bird, JJ., did not sit.
Exhibit 32.2



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 Quarterly Report of Covalent Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lawrence R. Hoffman, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 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/ Lawrence R. Hoffman                                                                             
|Lawrence R. Hoffman Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer



November 14, 2005



The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12** 
**- 7359** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

P laintiff

- Appell ee , v.

DAVID CLARENCE WARD ,
Defendan t

- Appell ant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville

. Martin K. Reidinger , District Judge. ( 1:02

- cr
- 00063

- MR

- 1 )

Submitted : November 20, 2012 Decided: November 27, 2012

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

David Clarence Ward, Appellant Pro Se

. Donald David Gast , Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

David Cla rence Ward appeals from the district court ’ s
order denying his motion to reopen his criminal case. Ward

asserted that his felon in possession of a firearm conviction
was a lesser included offense of his armed bank robbery

conviction. However, neither the federal statutes nor the Rules
of Criminal and Appellate Procedure provide for a motion to
reopen or a motion for reconsideration in a criminal case. Ward
must seek relief under 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2241, 2255 (West Supp.

201 2 ). United States v. Breit , 754 F.2d 526, 530

– 31 (4th Cir.

1985). Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

th is court and argument would not aid the de cisional process

AFFIRMED