alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 16.201 Contents of application. ( a ) An application for an award of fees and expenses under the Act shall identify the applicant and the proceeding for which an award is sought. The application shall show that the applicant has prevailed and identify the position of an agency or agencies in the proceeding that the applicant alleges was not substantially justified. Unless the applicant is an individual, the application shall also state the number of employees of the applicant at the time the proceeding was instituted and describe briefly the type and purpose of its organization or business.
( b ) The application shall also include a statement that the applicant's net worth at the time the formal proceedings were instituted did not exceed $1 million (if an individual) or $5 million (for all other applicants, including their affiliates). However, an applicant may omit this statement if: ( 1 ) It attaches a copy of a ruling by the Internal Revenue Service that it qualifies as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)) or, in the case of a tax-exempt organization not required to obtain a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service on its exempt status, a statement that describes the basis for the applicant's belief that it qualifies under such section; or
( 2 ) It states that it is a cooperative association as defined in section 15(a) of the Agricultural Marketing Act (12 U.S.C. 1141j(a)).
( c ) If the applicant is a partnership, corporation, association, or organization, or a sole owner of an unincorporated business, the application shall certify that it did not have more than 500 employees at the time the formal proceedings were initiated, giving the number of its employees and describing briefly the type and purpose of its organization or business.
( d ) The application shall state the amount of fees and expenses for which an award is sought.
( e ) The application may also include any other matters that the applicant wishes the adjudicative officer to consider in determining whether and in what amount an award should be made.
( f ) The application shall be signed by the applicant with respect to the eligibility of the applicant and by the attorney of the applicant with respect to fees and expenses sought. It shall also contain or be accompanied by a written verification under oath or under penalty of perjury that the information provided in the application is true and correct.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1225-0013) [46 FR 63021, Dec. 29, 1981, as amended at 47 FR 14696, Apr. 6, 1982]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

# TIME AND DATE:

 2:30 P.M., Monday, May 22, 2000.

# PLACE:

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, 1325 G Street, NW, Suite 800, Board Room, Washington, DC 20005.

# STATUS:

 Open/Closed.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Jeffrey T. Bryson, General Counsel/Secretary (202) 220-2372.

## Agenda

I. Call to Order

II. Approval of Minutes:

March 22, 2000 Regular Meeting

III. Committee Reports

IV. Election of Officers

V. Board Appointments

VI. Resolution of Appreciation

VII. Proposed Pension Plan Amendments

VIII. Treasurer's Report

IX. Executive Director's Quarterly Management Report

X. Personnel Issues

XI. Adjourn

Jeffrey T. Bryson,

General Counsel/Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-11883  Filed 5-8-00; 3:49 pm]

BILLING CODE 7570-01-M
#### In the Matter of Megan G., a Child Alleged to be Abused. Jefferson County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Ronald F. G., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[698 NYS2d 375]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition determining, following a hearing, that respondent had sexually abused his daughter Megan. Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for an examination of Megan by respondent’s expert (see, *Matter of Jessica R.,*78 NY2d 1031, 1033-1034; *Matter of Stephanie*A., 224 AD2d 1027, 1028, *lv denied*88 NY2d 814; *Matter of Diana D.,*218 AD2d 697, 697-698). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the finding of abuse is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; *Matter of Philip M.,*82 NY2d 238, *243-244; Matter of Nicole V.,*71 NY2d 112, 117). Megan’s out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated by the validation testimony of petitioner’s expert witness (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]; *Matter of Jaclyn P.,*86 NY2d 875, 878, *cert denied sub nom. Papa v Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs.,*516 US 1093; *Matter of Nicole V., supra,*at 121; *Matter of Heather P.,*233 AD2d 912). (Appeal from Order of Jefferson County Family Court, Morgan, J. — Abuse.) Present— Denman, P. J., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Balio, JJ.
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 Annual Report of 24/7 Real Media, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K/A for the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jonathan K. Hsu, Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



March 24,
2004

| |  | /s/JONATHAN K. HSU Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
II 

Calendar No. 26 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 483 

To enact into law a bill by reference. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2019 

Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Ms. STABENOW, and Mr. UDALL) introduced the 

following bill; which was read the first time 

FEBRUARY 14, 2019 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To enact into law a bill by reference. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SEC. ll. (a) H.R. 1029 of the 115th Congress, as 

4 passed by the Senate on June 28, 2018, is enacted into 

5 law. 

6 (b) In publishing this Act in slip form and in the 

7 United States Statutes at Large pursuant to section 112 

8 of title 1, United States Code, the Archivist of the United 

9 States shall include after the date of approval at the end 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 483 PCS

1 an appendix setting forth the text of the bill referred to 

2 in subsection (a). 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Calendar No. 26 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 483 

A BILL 

To enact into law a bill by reference. 

FEBRUARY 14, 2019 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### SOUL, Rec’r etc. v. LOCKHART BELLAR v. SOUL Rec’r etc.

Ohio Supreme Court.

Nos. 20992 & 21046.

Decided Dec. 19, 1928.

No.. 20992

No. 21046

JONES, J.

COURTS.

(180 Jj) The only original, civil jurisdiction conferred upon the Cleveland Municipal Court is that found in Section 1579-6, General Code. The sections following are merely supplementary or ancillary thereto, having for their object the conservation ;and enforcement of its original jurisdiction, conferred by the foregoing section.

(180 R) Section 1579-11, General Code, is confined to the municipal court’s supplementary or ancillary jurisdiction, including its power to appoint a special receiver before and after judgment, to carry its judgments into effect. This section does not authorize the appointment, by the muncipal court, of a general receiver under the ordinary “usages of equity.” (Section 11894, par. 6, General Code).

The order of appointment in the instant cases, as shown by the court’s entry, was simply an order appointing a special receiver for the corporate assets for the purpose of applying, the same “towards the satisfaction” of the (judgments.

Day, Allen, Kinkade and Matthias, JJ., concur.
#### The People *vs.*Tilton and others.

When a cause is submitted on *written arguments,*the prevailing party is not entitled to tax against his adversary the *arguments ;*all he can claim is an allowance for the *points*made in the case, to a reasonable extent.
§ 1471.1005 State. ( a ) *State* means— ( 1 ) Any of the states of the United States;
( 2 ) The District of Columbia;
( 3 ) The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;
( 4 ) Any territory or possession of the United States; or
( 5 ) Any agency or instrumentality of a state.
( b ) For purposes of this part, *State* does not include institutions of higher education, hospitals, or units of local government.
#### § 0.735-1 Cross-references to employee ethical conduct standards, financial disclosure regulations and other ethics regulations.

Employees of the Department of Labor (Department) are subject to the executive branch-wide standards of ethical conduct at 5 CFR part 2635, the Department's regulations at 5 CFR part 5201 which supplement the executive branch-wide standards, the executive branch financial disclosure regulations at 5 CFR part 2634, the conflicts of interest regulations at 5 CFR part 2640, and the post employment regulations at 5 CFR part 2641.

[64 FR 73853, Dec. 30, 1999]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7293

JONATHAN PENDLETON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LOUISE MARIE DIMATTEO, Arlington Circuit Court Judge; PAUL FERGUSON, 

Arlington Circuit Court Clerk; NELSON SMITH, Commissioner, Virginia 

Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (3:23-cv-00734-RCY-MRC)

Submitted: April 22, 2024 Decided: May 14, 2024

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Pendleton, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Gallagher, OFFICE OF THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7293 Doc: 18 Filed: 05/14/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Pendleton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pendleton has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Pendleton’s emergency motion for a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7293 Doc: 18 Filed: 05/14/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
#### BRANCH v PERRINER

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co.

No. 9207.

Decided Jan. 14. 1929

Geiger & Williams, Cleveland, for Branch.

John H McNeal, Cleveland, for Perringer.

Middleton, PJ and Mauck, J of the 4th Dist and Farr, J of the 7th Dist, sitting.

MAUCK, J

There was enough evidence in the record to go to the jury upon the question of the defendant’s negligence, but the trial court must have found that plaintiff was' himself at the time of the accident guilty of contributory negligence in these particulars:

(1) In that the plaintiff was not driving with the lights required by the statute and but for the abscence of such lights he would have seen the parked car into which he drove his machine.

(2) That the plaintiff, at the time of the collision, was driving his car at such a rate of speed that the legal inference arises that it was unsafe and unlawful.

(3) That he turned his machine to the right and by so turning ran into the defendant’s automobile at a time when the plaintiff was so blinded that he did not see where he was going.

Certainly this combination of facts raises a presumption of negligence that prevented *89the plaintiff from recovering until such presumption was met. Indeed we may say that these facts not only raised that presumption but of themselves established such contributory negligence that plaintiff, as a matter of law, could not recover.

Middleton, PJ, and Farr, J, concur.
#### § 91.1719 Credit for prior training.

Initial/transition, requalification, recurrent or Level B differences training conducted prior to November 7, 2016, compliant with SFAR No. 108, Section 3 of this part, is considered to be compliant with this subpart, if the student met the eligibility requirements for the applicable category of training and the student's instructor met the experience requirements of this subpart.
#### § 1627.10 Notices to be posted.

Every employer, employment agency, and labor organization which has an obligation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 shall post and keep posted in conspicuous places upon its premises the notice pertaining to the applicability of the Act prescribed by the Commission or its authorized representative. Such a notice must be posted in prominent and accessible places where it can readily be observed by employees, applicants for employment and union members.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Defense Logistics Agency

# AGENCY:

Defense Logistics Agency, Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of membership—2000 DLA PRB. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the appointment of members to the Defense Logistics Agency Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board (PRB). The publication of PRB composition is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). The PRB provides fair and impartial review of Senior Executive Service performance appraisals and makes recommendations to the Director, Defense Logistics Agency, with respect to pay level adjustments and performance awards, and other actions related to management of the SES cadre.

# EFFECTIVE DATES:

July 1, 2000.

# ADDRESSES:

Defense Logistics Agency, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, STE 2533, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, 22060-6221.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ms. Donna Coward, Workforce Effectiveness and Development Group, Human Resources, Defense Logistics Agency, Department of Defense, (703) 767-6427.                              ( print page 30976)    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the following are the names and titles of DLA career executives appointed to serve as members of the SES PRB. Members will serve a 2-year term, effective July 1, 2000.

PRB Chair: Mr. Frank Lotts, Deputy Director, Logistics Operations.

Members: Ms. Phyllis Campbell, Deputy Commander, Defense Distribution Center, Mr. Michael Miller, Executive Director, Program/Budget Office, Ms. Claudia S. Knott, Executive Director, Electronic Business Office.

Gary S. Thurber,

Executive Director, Defense Logistics Agency.

[FR Doc. 00-12105 Filed 5-12-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3620-01-M
Exhibit
13.2





PRINCIPAL
FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Annual Report of Ultrapetrol (Bahamas) Limited (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Leonard J. Hoskinson, Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.




This
certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not
for any other purpose.  A signed original of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





Date:
March 30, 2010





/s/ Leonard J.
Hoskinson


Leonard
J. Hoskinson


Principal
Financial Officer
Take notice that on January 7, 2000, Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, Sixth Revised Sheet No. 176, to be effective February 7, 2000.

CIG states that it provides swing service pursuant to Rate Schedule SS-1. In implementing this Rate Schedule, CIG has discovered an oversight. CIG states that as currently structured, the commodity rate for the swing service applies only to daily gas quantities allocated to a shipper's swing contract that exceed 5% of the daily total scheduled quantities at the pertinent delivery point. To provide more flexibility to shippers, CIG asks the Commission for permission to expand the safe harbor so that the commodity rate applies only to daily swing quantities that exceed the greater of 100 Dth or 5% of the daily total scheduled quantities at the pertinent delivery point.

CIG states that this revision will ensure that the swing service commodity rate is not imposed on small gas quantities. CIG states that to ensure that shippers get the immediate benefit of this expanded flexibility, it has posted a notice on its electronic bulletin board on November 5, 1999 that waives the pertinent provision of Rate Schedule SS-1 to implement the broader “greater of” standard. 

CIG further states that copies of this compliance filing have been served on CIG's jurisdictional customers and public bodies. 

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-1187 Filed 1-18-00;8:45am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### EMERY v TOLEDO (city) et

Ohio Supreme Court

Nos 21596 & 21776.

Decided June 19, 1929

Syllabus by

MARSHALL, CJ.

REAL ESTATE

(510 A6) In appropriating private property to municipal uses, the determination of the municipality of the fact and extent of the public need and the uses to which the property shall be subjected is legislative and political, and may not be questioned in the apprdpriation proceedings against' the property owner.

In such appropriation proceedings the only issue relates to the value of the property.

An owner whose property is being appropriated by a municipality may, at any time before the issue of value is determined. invoke the aid of a court of equity to determine whether the use is a public one, or whether the municipality in its legislative proceedings has complied with reasonable strictness with the statutes whereby the power to appropriate is conferred, or whether the municipality is acting in good faith or abusing its power.

Where such equitable issue is determined by the court of appeals upon evidence which is in conflict and no motion for a new trial is filed, the evidence will not be reviewed by this court.

Quaere: whether property appropriated by a municipality for a specified use may be used for any purpose having no definite relation to the use declared in the municipal legislation declaring the necessity for the use.

Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias, D,ay and Allen, JJ, concur.