alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 42.34 Evidence. ( a ) The ALJ shall determine the admissibility of evidence.
( b ) Except as provided in this part, the ALJ shall not be bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence. However, the ALJ may apply the Federal Rules of Evidence where appropriate, e.g., to exclude unreliable evidence.
( c ) The ALJ shall exclude irrelevant and immaterial evidence.
( d ) Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
( e ) Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if it is privileged under Federal law.
( f ) Evidence concerning offers of compromise or settlement shall be inadmissible to the extent provided in Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
( g ) The ALJ shall permit the parties to introduce rebuttal witnesses and evidence.
( h ) All documents and other evidence offered or taken for the record shall be open to examination by all parties, unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ pursuant to § 42.24 of this part.
###### Editorial Note on Part 51

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 51 appear at 74 FR 19432, Apr. 29, 2009.

#### § 51.32 Terminating recognition.

Once a home has achieved recognition, the recognition will be terminated only if the State requests that the recognition be terminated, or if VA makes a final decision that affirms the Director's decision not to certify the State home.
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.212 Unexplained absence for 7 years. ( a ) If satisfactory evidence is produced establishing the fact of the continued and unexplained absence of any individual from his or her home and family for a period of 7 years or more and that a diligent search disclosed no evidence of his or her existence after the date of disappearance, and if evidence as provided in § 3.211 cannot be furnished, the death of such individual as of the expiration of such period may be considered as sufficiently proved.
( b ) No State law providing for presumption of death will be applicable to claims for benefits under laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the finding of death will be final and conclusive except where suit is filed for insurance under 38 U.S.C. 1984. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 108)
( c ) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a finding of death made by another Federal agency will be accepted if the finding meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.

Cross Reference:
Evidence of dependents and age. See § 3.204. [26 FR 1573, Feb. 24, 1961, as amended at 27 FR 1899, Feb. 28, 1962; 52 FR 19349, May 22, 1987]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Joint Statement on Somalia

# 									Joint Statement on Somalia							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

February 28, 2023

*The following is a Joint Statement by Qatar, Somalia, Türkiye, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America.*

*Begin text:*

Representatives of Qatar, Somalia, Türkiye, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America met in Washington, D.C. to discuss Somalia’s security, state-building, development, and humanitarian priorities.

The partners expressed support for the Federal Government of Somalia’s focus on counterterrorism and capacity building. They discussed how to better support Somalia’s fight against al-Shabaab and prepare for the African Union Transition Mission in Somalia drawdown, and agreed to strengthen coordination of international security assistance. Partners agreed on the importance of ensuring timely delivery of stabilization assistance to newly liberated areas. They committed to support Somalia’s efforts to meet the benchmarks on weapons and ammunition management to enable the UN Security Council to fully lift the arms controls on the Federal Government of Somalia.

The partners encourage and support Somalia’s National Consultative Council (NCC) process in promoting political reconciliation and to delineate the roles and responsibilities of levels of government in Somalia, including by finalizing the constitution.

The partners expressed concern about the ongoing conflict in and around Lascanood and called on all parties to adhere to the ceasefire, de-escalate, allow unhindered humanitarian access, and engage in constructive and peaceful dialogue.

They also expressed concern about the ongoing humanitarian crisis driven by Somalia’s worst drought on record. They welcomed support along with international actors to meet the immediate needs of the Somali people, while also strengthening Somalia’s ability to withstand future climate shocks.

The partners agreed to continue work within these areas and reconvene in Doha, Qatar, within the next three months for ongoing discussions and to take stock of progress.

*End text.*

Tags

African UnionBureau of African AffairsCountering TerrorismCounterterrorismHumanitarian AidOffice of the SpokespersonQatarThe Secretary of StateSomaliaTurkeyUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom

Back to Top
#### William F. Blank et al., Appellants, *v.*Henry Spies, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the General Term of the City Court of the city of ¡New York, modifying an order of the Special Term of said court, denying plaintiffs’ motion for a new taxation of costs.

Abram Effing, for appellants.

Malcolm R. Lawrence, for respondent

Order affirmed, with ten dollars’ costs and disbursements.

Present: Tbuax, P. J., Scott and Dugbo, JJ.

Order affirmed, with costs.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 605/2005

of 19 April 2005         

amending Regulation (EC) No 296/96 on data to be transmitted by the Member States and the monthly booking of expenditure financed under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Articles 5(3) and 7(5) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 296/96 is hereby amended as follows:

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 16 October 2005, with the exception of Article 1(1)(d) and (4), which shall apply from 16 October 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 April 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 103.

(2)OJ L 39, 17.2.1996, p. 5. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1655/2004 (OJ L 298, 23.9.2004, p. 3).

(3)OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

(4)OJ L 153, 30.4.2004, p. 4.

----
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

KCG, INC., as successor to 

K.C. Wall Products and Ruco Drywall Products, Inc.,

Appellant,

v.

STEVEN BOLIN and

DEBORAH BOLIN, his wife,

Appellees.

No. 4D18-927

[August 8, 2018]

Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Martin Bidwill, Judge; L.T. Case No. 17-

018220(27).

Michael B. Buckley of Buckley Law Group, P.A., St. Petersburg, for 

appellant.

Rebecca S. Vinocur of Rebecca S. Vinocur, P.A., Coral Gables, for 

appellees.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to dismiss for 

lack of personal jurisdiction on the authority of Southern Wall Products v. 

Bolin, Case No. 4D18-875 (Fla. 4th DCA July 25, 2018). Both cases arise 

out of the same underlying case, and the jurisdictional allegations are 

similar. In this case, Bolin alleged he was exposed to asbestos in materials 

manufactured by KCG or its predecessor from 1975 to 1977 in Florida. 

The affidavit filed by a KCG representative stated that it did not have any 

contacts with Florida prior to 1994. Its predecessor operated a plant in 

Florida starting in the early 1980’s, after Bolin’s alleged exposure. Bolin 

offered no evidence of minimum contacts, other than his own use of a 

product which he identified as distributed or manufactured by KCG in the 

1970’s. Just as in Southern Wall Products, Bolin failed to satisfy the 

constitutional minimum contacts for KCG to be subject to jurisdiction in 

Florida.
2

We therefore reverse and remand for entry of an order dismissing KCG 

from the action.

WARNER, LEVINE and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-14-0792 SAT Date: 9/3/2014 Print Date: 9/30/2014

Related cases :

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1-2 2

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 1 11

Exposure Based Review : Health: Ecotox: N o
Routes of exposure : Health: Inhalation Ecotox: All releases to water Fate: ; Keywords : Keywords: LUNG; AQUATOX
Summary of Assessment :

Fate : Fate Summary: P-14-0792-94 FATE: Estimations for low weight polymer MP < 25 C (E) log Kow = 0.44 (E) S = Disp. (E) VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E) BP > 400 C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) log Koc = 1.72 (E) log Fish BCF = 0.50 (E)log Fish BAF = -0.024 (E) POTW removal (%) = 75-90 via biodeg Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk-mo Sorption to soils/sediments = low PBT Potential: P1B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = slow

Health : Health Summary: Absorption of low molecular weight fractions is expected to be poor all routes ( p che m ). Concern for lung toxicity from interference with the natural balance of the lungs. Test Data: P14-0794: (-) Salmonella with and without activation; rat oral LD0 = 2000 mg/kg; some eye irritation in rabbits that cleared by day 6; no skin irritation in rabbits; no skin sensitization in guinea pigs using the Buehler assay

: (-) Salmonella with and without activation; (-) E. coli with and without activation; no skin sensitization in a human Repeated Insult Patch Test as a neat oil; no eye irritation in the in vitro EpiOcular assay

Ecotox :
Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 1.7 daphnid 48-h LC50 1.4 green algal 96-h EC50 1.5 fish

_ chronic value 0.709 daphnid

_ chronic value 0.844

algal

_ chronic value 0.529

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for SAR chemical class = ; modified log Kow = 4.8 (P); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness <180.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/ L;;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) 53SARs N onionic SAR Class N onionic Ecotox Category N onionic

Ecotox Factors Comments:

SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
§ 48.650 Grant. *Grant* means an award of financial assistance that, consistent with 31 U.S.C. 6304, is used to enter into a relationship— ( a ) The principal purpose of which is to transfer a thing of value to the recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States, rather than to acquire property or services for the Federal Government's direct benefit or use; and
( b ) In which substantial involvement is not expected between the Federal agency and the recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated by the award.
#### Summers v. Summers

*H. Lester Hems,*for plaintiff.

*Morris Gerber,*for defendant.

October 28, 1955.

Dannehower, J.,

In this divorce action on the grounds of willful and malicious desertion, defendant wife filed a preliminary objection aver*188ring that this court does not have jurisdiction, because the wife secured a divorce from plaintiff on May 27, 1955, in the State of Louisiana and has attached a photostatic copy of the judgment of that court to that effect. To this preliminary objection, plaintiff has filed no replication or answer.

This preliminary objection was argued before the court en banc and is pending for decision.

The complaint alleges that the parties are husband and wife. The preliminary objection alleges that they are not husband and wife because of the alleged Louisiana divorce. This is a speaking demurrer and raises an issue of fact and does not raise a true question of jurisdiction. This court, on the face of the complaint, has jurisdiction of the person and subject matter and the test of jurisdiction is whether the court has power to enter upon the inquiry, not whether it may ultimately decide that it is unable to grant the relief sought in the particular case: McCabe v. Ivory et al., 338 Pa. 572.

We consider the alleged fact of divorce as an affirmative defense and as such, under our Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 1030, should be pleaded under the heading of “New Matter”.

It might very well be that when this alleged divorce is pleaded under “New Matter”, plaintiff will file a reply thereto alleging that said divorce is fraudulent or void for lack of jurisdiction and an issue will then be raised as to the validity of said alleged Louisiana divorce, which issue ordinarily would be determined at trial.

*Order*

And now, October 28, 1955, for the foregoing reasons, defendant’s preliminary objection is overruled and dismissed and defendant is allowed 20 days from this date to file an answer or affirmative defense, if she sees fit.
#### LENOX V. THE STATE.

(Decided Feb. 8, 1912.)

Appeal from Madison Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. James H. Ballentine.

No counsel marked for appellant. R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Per curiam.

No error of record. Affirmed.
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


         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, each of
the undersigned officer(s) of Accelr8 Technology Corporation, a Colorado
corporation (the "Corporation"), does hereby certify, to such officer's
knowledge, that:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended January 31,
2008 (the "Form 10-QSB") of the Corporation fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.



Dated: March 17, 2008


/s/  Thomas V. Geimer
---------------------
Thomas V. Geimer,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
##### 



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 Sentex Sensing Technology, Inc.,
(the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 28, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Robert S. Kendall, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U. S. C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act 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/ Robert S. Kendall

Robert S. Kendall
Chief Executive Officer
April 17, 2003

13
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE MOST RECENT QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM
10-Q OF
RESEARCH FRONTIERS INCORPORATED FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1999
AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       4,003,434
<SECURITIES>                                 1,215,795
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,318
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,478,923
<PP&E>                                         244,470
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,747,147
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          217,332
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,995,680
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,747,147
<SALES>                                         91,250
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               217,348
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,903,788
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,686,440)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,686,440)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.15)


</TABLE>
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 22

- 10879
Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus EUGENE A. LIGHT,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:21

- cr

- 00021

- AW

- GRJ

- 1

____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-10879 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 Page: 1 of 22 Opinion of the Court 22

- 10879

Before R OSENBAUM , G RANT , and B RASHER , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Richard Summa, appointed counsel for Eugene Light in thisdirect criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. Californ ia, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit ofthe appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motio n to withdraw is GRANTED , and Light’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED

. USCA11 Case: 22-10879 Date Filed: 07/06/2022 Page: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SS.1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of IR BioSciences Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the periods ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John N. Fermanis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.





IR BIOSCIENCES HOLDINGS, INC.Date: November 22, 2010
By:
/s/ John N. FermanisJohn N. FermanisChief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, another document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Albert W. Davis, Appellant, *v.*Therese Lynch, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

June, 1900.)

Principal and agent — When principal is liable on agent’s contract in his own name.

If an agent, possessing due authority, makes a contract in his own name, his principal, whether known or unknown, may be sued thereon, unless, from the attendant circumstances, it is the clear intent of the parties that exclusive credit is to be given to the agent, and' that no resort is to be had in any event to the principal.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, eleventh district, borough of Manhattan.

Max Bayersdorfer (Jacob H. Corn, of counsel), for appellant.

Maurice Meyer, for respondent.

O’Gormah, J.

Although the written contract in question was 'signed by George M. Lynch, there is sufficient in plaintiffs proofs to justify the fin fling that George M Lynch was at the time acting as the defendant’s agent, and was so regarded by both parties. It was, therefore, error to grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

If an agent, possessing due authority, makes a contract in his own name, his principal, whether known or unknown, may be sued thereon, unless from the attendant circumstances it is the clear intent of the parties that exclusive credit is given to the agent, and that no resort shall in any event be had against the principal. Story Agency, § 160a; Coleman v. First Nat. Bank, 53 N. Y. 393; Hall v. Lauderdale, 46 id. 70. We are aware that *725a contrary rule was declared in Matter of Bateman, 7 Misc. Rep. 633, but the statement of the law there made is not in harmony with the authorities. Although that case was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the judgment was upheld on other grounds.

Judgment reversed-and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Beekman, P. J., and Giegerich, J., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.