alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 92 (Thursday, May 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30397-30398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11772]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP00-48-000]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Site Visit

May 5, 2000.
    On May 16 and 17, 2000 the Office of Energy Projects (OEP) staff 
will inspect Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company's (TGP) proposed route and 
potential alternative routes for the Londonderry 20'' Replacement 
Project in Middlesex County, Massachusetts, and Hillsboro and 
Rockingham Counties, New Hampshire. The areas will be inspected by 
automobile and on foot. Representatives of TGP will accompany the OEP 
staff. Anyone interested in

[[Page 30398]]

participating in the site visits must provide their own transportation.
    For additional information, contact Mr. Paul McKee of the 
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (202) 208-1088.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-11772 Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### David F. Mitchell, Appellant, v. Harry Mason, Appellee.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

D. C. Campbell, for Appellant.

Alex. St. Clair-Abrams, for Appellee.

Appeal dismised December oth, 1911, on motion of coun sel for Appellant.
#### § 99.45 Alaska ADIZ.

The area is bounded by a line from 54°00′ N; 136°00′W; 56°57′ N; 144°00′W; 57°00′ N; 145°00′W; 53°00′ N; 158°00′W; 50°00′ N; 169°00′W; 50°00′ N; 180°00′; 50°00′ N; 170°00′E; 53°00′ N; 170°00′E; 60°00′00′′ N; 180°00′; 65°00′ N; 169°00′W; then along 169°00′W; to 75°00′ N; 169°00′W; then along the 75°00′ N; parallel to 75°00′ N, 141°00′W; 69°50′ N; 141°00′W 71°18′ N; 156°44′W; 68°40′ N; 167°10′W; 67°00′ N; 165°00′W; 65°40′ N; 168°15′W; 63°45′ N; 165°30′W; 61°20′ N; 166°40′W; 59°00′ N; 163°00′W; then south along 163°00′W to 54°00′ N, 163°00′W; 56°30′ N; 154°00′W; 59°20′ N; 146°00′W; 59°30′ N; 140°00′W; 57°00′ N; 136°00′W; 54°35′ N, 133°00′W; to point of beginning.

[Doc. No. FAA-2001-10693, 66 FR 49822, Sept. 28, 2001. Redesignated at 69 FR 16756, Mar. 30, 2004]
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of SunCoast Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, John S. Wilks, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 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. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the report.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |     |  |                                                               
|------------------ |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 10, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ John S. Wilks                                             
|                   |  |     |  | John S. Wilks, Chief Financial Officer                        
|                   |  |     |  | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer)
###### Editorial Note on Part 380

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 380 appear at 84 FR 15940, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 380.11 Payment to direct air carrier(s).

Except for air taxi operators and commuter air carriers (which are governed by 14 CFR 298.38) and Canadian charter air taxi operators (which are governed by 14 CFR 294.32), the direct air carrier(s) shall be paid in full for the cost of the charter transportation (for both legs, if a round-trip charter) prior to the scheduled date of flight departure, as provided for in the basic charter regulations applicable to the direct air carrier(s) under part 212 of this chapter.
Exhibit 13.1

Certification

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)

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 officers of Fomento Económico Mexicano, S.A.B. de C.V. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the Form 20-F) of the Company fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results from operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                   
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 21, 2017 |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                   
|                     |  |  | 
|                     |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Carlos Salazar Lomelín                                        
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                   
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Carlos Salazar Lomelín
Chief Executive Officer                    
|Date: April 21, 2017 |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                   
|                     |  |  | 
|                     |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Miguel Eduardo Padilla Silva                                  
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                   
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Miguel Eduardo Padilla Silva
Chief Financial and Corporate Officer
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Emil Sundheimer, as Executor of Paul Sundheimer, Deceased, Respondent. Sigrid M. Sundheimer, Appellant; Alice Dillingham, as Special Guardian, Respondent.

Submitted March 1, 1937;

decided March 9, 1937.

Motion for reargmnent denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 272 N. Y. 532.)
#### § 415.63 Incorporation of payload determination in license application.

A favorable payload determination issued for a payload or class of payload may be included by a license applicant as part of its application. However, any change in information provided under section 415.59 of this subpart must be reported in accordance with section 413.17 of this chapter. The FAA determines whether a favorable payload determination remains valid in light of reported changes and may conduct an additional payload review.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30119-30120]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11881]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 at 10:0 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW, Washington, DC

[[Page 30120]]


STATUS:  This meeting will be closed to the Public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 
Sec. 437g.
    Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437g, Sec. 438(b), and 
Title 26, U.S.C.
    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.
    Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a 
particular employee.

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, May 18, 2000 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW, Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

STATUS: This Meeting will be open to the Public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: Correction and Approval of Minutes.
    Draft Advisory Opinion 2000-06--Gerald M. Moan on behalf of the 
2000 Convention Committee of the Reform Party U.S.A.
    Proposal to initiate a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Political 
Committee Definition (11 C.F.R. 100.5).
    Administrative Matters.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Mary W. Dove,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 00-11881 Filed 5-8-00; 3:11 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 02-20318

_____________________
COLISEUM FORD INC Plaintiff-Counter Defendant–Appellee,

v. FORD DEALER COMPUTER SERVICES INC, also known as Dealer Computer Services Inc Defendant-Counter Claimant– Appellant

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

No. H-01-CV-2293

_________________________________________________________________ January 8, 2003 Before KING, Chief Judge, and DEMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ford Dealer Computer Services, Inc. (DCS) seeks to recover damages from Coliseum Ford Inc. (Coliseum Ford) for breach of a long-term computer contract (the Agreement). The Agreement contains an arbitration clause which is set out below. DCS filed an arbitration demand, following which Coliseum Ford filed an application to stay arbitration in a Texas state district court.2

The suit was removed to federal district court, and DCS then filed a motion to compel arbitration. The district court agreed with Coliseum Ford that the dispute was not arbitrable and denied DCS’s motion to compel arbitration. DCS appeals. We reverse. Respectfully, we disagree with the district court’s interpretation of the arbitration clause in the Agreement, which reads as follows: Except as provided otherwise in this Agreement, all disputes, claims, controversies and other matters in question between the parties to this Agreement, arising out of, or relating to this Agreement, or to the breach thereof, including any claim in which either party is demanding monetary damages of the nature including negligence, strict liability or intentional acts and omissions by either party, and which cannot be resolved by the parties, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the arbitration procedure described below. Collection of any accrued amounts owed by Dealer to FDCS (and not disputed in writing with specificity within a reasonable period from the invoice date) shall not be subject to this arbitration procedure. This arbitration procedure shall in no way limit FDCS’ remedies as provided in Section 12. As we read the clause, the sentence excepting from arbitration collection of accrued amounts owed by Coliseum Ford to DCS is designed to deal with the collection of undisputed amounts regularly invoiced under the Agreement. The fact that it speaks in terms of “collection,” “not disputed” and “invoice” supports that interpretation. The clause is not designed to deal with what is essentially a breach of contract claim, as to which the amount of damages owing is disputed and which is not the subject of an invoice.3

Accordingly, we reverse the order of the district court entered February 14, 2002 denying DCS’s motion to compel arbitration and remand for entry of an order compelling arbitration. Costs shall be borne by Coliseum Ford.
REVERSED.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4437 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4437

To clarify the eligibility of high school students to receive Pandemic 
           Unemployment Compensation, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 4, 2020

  Ms. Smith (for herself and Ms. Klobuchar) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To clarify the eligibility of high school students to receive Pandemic 
           Unemployment Compensation, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``High School Student Unemployment 
Eligibility Clarification Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 2102(a) of the Relief for Workers Affected 
by Coronavirus Act (contained in subtitle A of title II of division A 
of the CARES Act (Public Law 116-136)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A)(ii)(II), by striking ``and'' at the 
        end;
            (2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); 
        and
            (3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
                    ``(B) includes an individual who meets the criteria 
                described in subparagraph (A) and is a student 
                attending, doing distance learning through, or on 
                vacation from, a secondary school (as defined in 
                section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
                Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801)), regardless of whether 
                the individual is able to accept employment during 
                school hours; and''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall be 
effective as if enacted on the date of enactment of the CARES Act 
(Public Law 116-136).
                                 <all>
```
§ 1471.610 What procedures does the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service use in suspension and debarment actions? In deciding whether to suspend or debar you, we handle the actions as informally as practicable, consistent with principles of fundamental fairness. ( a ) For suspension actions, we use the procedures in this subpart and subpart G of this part.
( b ) For debarment actions, we use the procedures in this subpart and subpart H of this part.
#### § 13.43 Wage and Hour Division investigation.

The Administrator may investigate possible violations of the Executive Order or this part either as the result of a complaint or at any time on his or her own initiative. As part of the investigation, the Administrator may conduct interviews with the relevant contractor, as well as the contractor's employees at the worksite during normal work hours; inspect the relevant contractor's records (including contract documents and payrolls, if applicable); make copies and transcriptions of such records; and require the production of any documentary or other evidence the Administrator deems necessary to determine whether a violation, including conduct warranting imposition of debarment, has occurred. Federal agencies and contractors shall cooperate with any authorized representative of the Department of Labor in the inspection of records, in interviews with employees, and in all aspects of investigations.
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION**




In
      connection with the periodic report of Asiamart, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Kwan Pui Wong, Chief Financial Officer
      (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) of the Company, hereby certify
      as
      of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350
      of
      the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)   The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
        applicable, 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 at the dates
        and for the periods indicated.


Dated: 
                August 20, 2007/s/
              Kwan Pui WongKwan
              Pui WongChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and
              Accounting Officer)
#### STEUBENVILLE (city) v REINER et

Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist, Jefferson Co

Decided Dec. 21, 1928

Amanda Z Strayer, City Solicitor, 'Steubenville, for City.

R B Cohen, Steubenville, for Reiner, et.

*325STATEMENT OF FACTS

This cause was submitted upon a motion to dismiss the appeal, this cause having been heard in the Court of Common Pleas and an appeal attempted to this Court without the filing of a bond for appeal within the statutory time provided by law.

A bond was later filed, but it was beyond the period fixed by statute.

It is claimed in defense of the contention of the plaintiff that the appeal should be dismissed, that no bond is required where the appeal is sought to be perfected by a municipality, as was the fact in this case.

In 12226 GC we find a general provision of the Code requiring a bond in appeal cases. There are certain exceptions provided for in the Statute, namely 348 GC and 12227 GC.

Now it will be noticed that a municipality is not mentioned, nor can be included by any construction of language in either of these sections which provide for such exemptions from the duty to file an appeal bond.

It is a recognized principle of statutory construction that the mention of one class or several classes of persons in a statute implies the exclusion of all others.

Cincinnati vs. Roettinger, 105 O. S., 145, State ex rel., vs. Forney, 108 O. S., 463.

Authorities outside of. the state or elementary works, would be of little importance in this case, as the rights of these parties must be determined upon the provisions of the statute.

And having found sections of the Statute, which require, as a general proposition a bond to be given, essential to the perfecting of an appeal, and among the sections making certain exceptions, failing to find a municipality, the conclusion is necessarily reached that the general duty rests upon a municipality to give an appeal bond, and such being, the fact, and a bond not having been given in compliance with the statute in this case, the motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained.

Farr and Pollock, JJ, concur in the judgment.
From: "Davis, Carlos E." < Carlos.E.Davis@saint

- gobain.com >

To: Susan Fairchild/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Alterman, Lauren P." < Lauren.P.Alterman@saint

- gobain.com >

Date: 12/23/2011 01:14 PM

Subject: CertainTeed 114 Response

- Wool Fiberglass Information

Susan:

I am sending to the attention of R Morales at USEPA RTP, NC a CD that

contains a partial response to the Section letter sent to Lauren

Alterman dated 28 October 2011. The CD is clearly marked as Business

Confidential Information.

The CD contains a labeled section for each of operating locations:

Athens, GA

Chowchilla, CA

Kansas City, KS

Each of these sections contains a partially completed spreadsheet, Forms

A and B only. Form C is only completed for the K2 furnace in Kansas City

at this time.

Also included are copies of the refractory PO’s that are available for

each of the furnaces and in some cases associated drawin gs.

Should have any questions or need any additional information please let

me know.

Best Regards,

Carlos E. Davis

Manager

- Environment, Health and Safety

Western Region

Saint

- Gobain North America

913

- 544

- 8888 (Cell)

913

- 342

- 6624, ext 53571 (Office)

EHS Portal
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****O�Brien quadrangle, Oregon :7.5-minute series (topographic)**
 
2012 | 2014 | 2015
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28/6:42123-A 6/
Item Number:0080-G-04 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000932759
 
October 23, 2017
§ 67.413 Medical records. ( a ) Whenever the Administrator finds that additional medical information or history is necessary to determine whether you meet the medical standards required to hold a medical certificate, you must: ( 1 ) Furnish that information to the FAA; or
( 2 ) Authorize any clinic, hospital, physician, or other person to release to the FAA all available information or records concerning that history.
( b ) If you fail to provide the requested medical information or history or to authorize its release, the FAA may suspend, modify, or revoke your medical certificate or, in the case of an applicant, deny the application for a medical certificate.
( c ) If your medical certificate is suspended, modified, or revoked under paragraph (b) of this section, that suspension or modification remains in effect until you provide the requested information, history, or authorization to the FAA and until the FAA determines that you meet the medical standards set forth in this part.
[Doc. No. FAA-2007-27812, 73 FR 43066, July 24, 2008]