alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
5:

Statement Pursuant to Section
906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, Daniel Dror, CEO and Chairman of
American International Industries, Inc, a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the following
certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with
respect to the following of this quarterly report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the period ended
March 31, 2005.

The undersigned certifies that the above
quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the above quarterly report fairly
presents, in all respects, the financial condition of American International Industries,
Inc. and results of its operations.

Date: May 13, 2005
Daniel Dror
CEO and Chairman/s/ Daniel Dror
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: September 11, 2014 517845

________________________________ In the Matter of DAVID MORRISHILL, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT ALBERT PRACK, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: August 4, 2014 Before: Stein, J.P., Rose, Egan Jr., Devine and Clark, JJ.

__________ David Morrishill, Marcy, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. After petitioner's urine twice tested positive for marihuana, he was charged in a misbehavior report with drug use. He was found guilty following a tier III disciplinary hearing, and that determination was affirmed on administrative appeal.-2- 517845

This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued. 1 We confirm. Petitioner signed a document waiving his right to employee assistance and, when he requested assistance at the hearing, the Hearing Officer appropriately acted "by offering to provide him with whatever he would have requested from an assistant" (Matter of Truman v Fischer, 75 AD3d 1019, 1020 [2010]; see Matter of Alvarez v Fischer, 94 AD3d 1404, 1405 [2012], lv denied 96 AD3d 1703 [2012]). The Hearing Officer properly denied petitioner's ensuing request for the testimony of a correction officer as irrelevant (see Matter of Henderson v Fischer, 98 AD3d 1162, 1163 [2012]). Likewise, petitioner was not entitled to a copy of the operator's manual for the testing equipment (see Matter of Anderson v Prack, 111 AD3d 1214, 1214 [2013]; Matter of Kussius v Walker, 247 AD2d 911, 912 [1998]; but see Matter of Marshall v Fischer, 103 AD3d 726, 728 [2013]). The Hearing Officer also appropriately denied petitioner's request for unredacted log book entries that would have identified other inmates who had been tested on the day in question (see Matter of Lindo v Fischer, 72 AD3d 1295, 1296 [2010]). Petitioner's remaining claims have been examined and found to be meritless. Stein, J.P., Rose, Egan Jr., Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.

1 While we agree with petitioner that the petition appears to raise only procedural issues and should not have been transferred to this Court, we will retain jurisdiction in the interest of judicial economy (see Matter of Hernandez v Fischer, 111 AD3d 1042, 1043 n [2013]).-3- 517845

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
§ 1471.725 How much time do I have to contest a suspension? ( a ) As a respondent you or your representative must either send, or make rrangements to appear and present, the information and argument to the suspending official within 30 days after you receive the Notice of Suspension.
( b ) We consider the notice to be received by you— ( 1 ) When delivered, if we mail the notice to the last known street address, or five days after we send it if the letter is undeliverable;
( 2 ) When sent, if we send the notice by facsimile or five days after we send it if the facsimile is undeliverable; or
( 3 ) When delivered, if we send the notice by e-mail or five days after we send it if the e-mail is undeliverable.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-

### {)_b}~**~J; ~** **~** Directorate Identifier:
Estimated 

### Costs: Costs per Product (e

. g. , aircraft , en g ine , Action propeller , appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost (e

. g ., Inspection , (include cost (labor + 

## u.s. for U.S. Fleet

replacement) access , testing , ( @ $85 /h parts) Registered and close-up) our) Products 

### Replacement 2.0 $25 , 000 300

The known number of products in campi iance : 

### 300 Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $7 , 551 ,000
Costs covered under warranty $0 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Us e thisfi eld to e xplain an y thing in the Estimated Costs table that was ass um ed or might not b e obvious. Thisfi e ld can also b e us ed to ex plain warranty costs ) : 

### Executive Order 12866:
Could the AD be considered a " significant regulatory action " ?

# ~ YES* 

# D NO 

### [g) *Explanation : 

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:
Is the AD significant? YES* 

# D NO 

### [g) *Explanation:

# ..

Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for either a Yes or No answer.

# ~ YESO**NO~** 

### Explanation: 

### Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: ' 

### This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode oftranspmtation?

# ~ YES* 

# 0**NO~** 

### *Explanation:
# Ruth 

# (JaJ11bl"l!.'er Ltc{ 

# itJ 

# vJJ 

# k'

COMMENTS N NEW CARBON RULES I supportthe new carbon rules, though modest, reducing carbon

**emissi~by ?~**  only 30% by 2030, based on high emission 200Sievels. The European



### Uniol)jha~ adopted a much stronger red· ·etien policy of40% reduction by 2030 based on lower emission 1990 pollution levels. That said, I dismiss the harsh rhetoric and claims made by numerous politicians and energy industry leaders thatthe new carbon rules are unattainable. As reported in the NewYork Times (6/8/14), the EPA gives Kentucky wide flexibility in reducing its carbon output byonly 18% by 2030. Moreover, the state has many options underthe rules to reduce carbon pollution, including efficiency improvements at power plants, energy conservation programs, and renewable energy standards for public utilities-a policyalready in effect in halfthe states in the U.S.

Kentucky lawmakers can readily worktowards the new EPA standards ifthey will supportthe Clean Energy OpportunityAct (HB195) which has been beforethe General Assembly the last four years. This bill sets a renewable energy goal of 12.5%from clean energy sources by 2024, sets energyefficiencystandards for utilities, and establishes feed-in-tariff rates that utilities pay in-state energy producers. Moreover, a study by Synapses Energy Economics, Inc. estimated that 28,000 net newjobs could be created ifthis legislation passes.

Coal generates 93% ofthe electricity in KY. We rank #1 in the nation in carbon emissions per unit of electricity produced from all sources. Indeed, coal is a culture here. But even natives of coal country recognize the inevitable changes afoot. When I recently worked the crowds atthe Cincinnati Coney Island Appalachian Fest soliciting signatures on a petition to stop mountaintop strip mining in Eastern KY, Iwas amazed by the numberofthose signing on who were natives ofthe area orwho had family members who were or are miners.

Last year, the state kicked off project SOAR-Shaping OurAppalachian Regionto initiate newjob opportunities in the region. Non- profits such as the Mountain



### A~'for Community Economic Development and Kentuckians forthe Commonwealth are working to enable a transition from a coal economytojobs in energy efficiency industries and agriculture. Citizens like myselfask our leaders to stop the foot dragging and face the reality ofa post fossil fuel era. Ithankthe EPA for nudging us forward.
§ 1925.1 Scope and application. ( a ) The McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1034, 41 U.S.C. 351, et seq.) requires that every contract entered into by the United States or the District of Columbia in excess of $2,500 (except as provided in section 7 of the Act), the principal purpose of which is to furnish services in the United States through the use of service employees, must contain, among other provisions, a stipulation that “no part of the services covered by this Act will be performed in buildings or surroundings or under working conditions, provided by or under the control or supervision of the contractor or any subcontractor, which are unsanitary or hazardous or dangerous to the health or safety of service employees engaged to furnish the services.” This part 1925 expresses certain minimum safety and health standards which will be applied in the administration and enforcement of the Act to determine whether services covered by the Act are being, or have been, performed in compliance with its safety and health requirements.
( b ) (1) Investigators conducting investigations and all officers of the Department of Labor evaluating, reviewing and analyzing investigations, as well as officers of the Department determining whether there are or have been violations of the safety and health requirements of the Service Contract Act of 1965 or any contract subject thereto and the terms on which there may be a settlement of issues arising from an investigation without resort to administrative or judicial litigation, will consider a failure to comply with the safety and health measures provided in § 1925.2 to result in working conditions which are “unsanitary or hazardous or dangerous to the health or safety of service employees” within the meaning of section 2(a)(3) of the Act and the contract stipulation it requires.
( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) The standards expressed in this part 1925 are for application to ordinary employment situations, and do not preclude proof or recognition of the necessity for additional standards in employment situations of extraordinary hazard. Neither do the standards expressed in this Part 1925 purport to cover all of the working conditions which are unsanitary or hazardous or dangerous to the health or safety of service employees. Other working conditions may be found to be unsanitary or hazardous or dangerous to the health or safety of such employees on evidence to that effect.
( e ) Compliance with the standards expressed in this part 1925 will not relieve anyone from any obligation he may have to comply with any stricter standard, such as state or local law or ordinance or collective bargaining agreement.
[32 FR 21036, Dec. 30, 1967, as amended at 36 FR 9866, May 29, 1971. Redesignated at 36 FR 25232, Dec. 30, 1971]
#### In the Matter of Meyer Rudack, Appellant, against Lewis J. Valentine, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

Submitted. May 26, 1937;

decided June 11, 1937.

*616
      *Joseph G. Fenster*for appellant.

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Francis J. Bloustein*and *Paxton Blair*of counsel), for Lewis J. Valentine et al., respondents.

*Harold Riegelman, H. H. Nordlinger*and *Jacob M. Dinnes*for League of Mutual Taxi Owners, Inc., et al., interveners, respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Bubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

In re:

PROMESA

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND Title III

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

 as a representative of No. 17 BK 3283-LTS

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et al. (Jointly Administered)

Debtors

 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

NOW comes creditors MARTA VÁZQUEZ TORRES, NEFTALY MÉNDEZ VÁZQUEZ, 

JOSEPH NEGRÓN VÁZQUEZ, and the SUCCESSION of ARMANDO NEGRÓN VÁZQUEZ

comprised by his heirs, RAYMOND ARMANDO NEGRÓN LÓPEZ and ALONDRA JANISSE 

NEGRÓN SANTANA (represented by their respective mothers, YESENIA INÉS LÓPEZ OSORIO 

and KATHIRIA JANISSE SANTANA PONCE), all represented by the undersigned attorney, to 

state as follows.

That pursuant to provisions of Rule 9010(b) of Bankruptcy Procedure, the appearing party 

notifies that it has retained the legal services of Osvaldo Toledo Martinez whose address is:

Osvaldo Toledo Martínez

PO Box 190938

San Juan PR 00919-0938

E-Mail: toledo.bankruptcy@gmail.com

Telephone No.: (787) 756-6395

Fax No.: (787) 767-7965

WHEREFORE, the appearing party respectfully prays that the Clerk of the Court takes notice of 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3366 Filed:06/29/18 Entered:06/29/18 02:47:41 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
2

the appearance of the undersigned attorney and to notify him of all the proceedings in this case, 

including but not limited to copies of the petition, schedules, motions, and statements filed or to be filed 

in the above-referenced case and further prays that the name and address be added to the Master 

Address List kept in the above-captioned case.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and exact copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with 

the clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which in turn will send notification of such filing to all 

interested parties of record.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

At San Juan, Puerto Rico, this June 28, 2018.

/S/ Osvaldo Toledo Martínez

OSVALDO TOLEDO MARTÍNEZ, ESQ.

USDC No. 127905

PO Box 190938

San Juan PR 00919-0938

Tel: (787) 756-6395

Fax: (787) 767-7965

E-Mail: toledo.bankruptcy@gmail.com

Counsel for Creditors

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3366 Filed:06/29/18 Entered:06/29/18 02:47:41 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
#### Chemical Bank and Trust Company, as Trustee under Trust Indentures Executed by Mary A. Ott, Deceased, Appellant and Respondent, *v.*Margaret K. Ott, Individually and as Executrix of Henry L. Ott, Deceased, et al., Respondents and Appellants, and Chemical Bank and Trust Company, as Administrator with the Will Annexed of Mary A. Ott, Deceased, et al., Respondents, Impleaded with Another.

Submitted June 7, 1937;

decided June 11, 1937.

Motion for reargument of the appeal of the appellant Clarence F. Ott in so far as it relates to the validity of the instruments of April 12, 1930, purporting to modify the provisions of the trust indenture executed by Mrs. Mary A. Ott on February 19, 1929, denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 274 N. Y. 572.)
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 31, 2018

No. 04

- 16

- 00406

- CR

Carl Wade BAILES

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR0076

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

The panel has considered the appellant ’ s motion for rehearing, and the motion is

DENIED.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 31st day of January, 2018

.

___________________________________ K eith E. H ottle

, Clerk of Court
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09** 

**- 2299** 

OMAR M. RUIZ ACOSTA ,

Petitioner
,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. , Attorney General,

Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appea ls

.

Submitted : June 15, 2010 Decided: Ju ly 2 , 2010

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Ada E. Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, Matthew A. Spurlock, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

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

Omar M. Ruiz Acosta, a native and citizen of El

Salvador, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ)

decision denying relief from removal. Acosta asserts that the

IJ erred and violated his right to due process in pretermitting

his application for cancellation of removal. We have reviewed

these claims and the administrative record and conclude that

they are without merit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1) (2006).

Next, Acosta contends that the IJ erred in finding that Acosta

abandoned the potential relief of voluntary departure. Our

review discloses that Acosta failed to meet a specific deadline

set by the IJ for identifying the relief sought. Accordingly,

the IJ properly exercised his discretion in finding the

application waived. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c) (2010).

We accordingly deny the petition for review. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in th e materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
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 State

          - [Public Notice #3281]

                    The Shipping Coordinating Committee (SHC) will conduct an open meeting at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, 1 June 2000, in Room 6319, at U. S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW, Washington, DC 20593-0001. The purpose of the meeting is to finalize preparations for the 84th session of Council and the 48th Session of the Technical Cooperation Committee of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) which is scheduled for 12-16 June 2000, at the IMO Headquarters in London. Discussions will focus on papers received and draft U.S. positions.                           ( print page 31624)    

Among other things, the items of particular interest are: 

—Reports of Committees; 

—Financial Matters; 

—Work Program and Budget Prospects for 2000; 

—Integrated Technical Cooperation Program/Technical Cooperation Fund

Members of the public may attend these meetings up to the seating capacity of the room. Interested persons may seek information by writing: Director, International Affairs, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, Commandant (G-CI), Room 2114, 2100 Second Street, SW, Washington, DC 20593-0001 or by calling: (202) 267-2280. 

Dated: May 5, 2000.

Stephen M. Miller, 

Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating Committee.

[FR Doc. 00-12569 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-07-U
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12481]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed consent decree in United States v. Roger 
D. Williams, Civil Action No. 2:00CV296 (E.D. Va.), was lodged with the 
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 
Norfolk Division, on April 21, 2000. This proposed Consent Decree 
concerns a complaint filed by the United States against Roger D. 
Williams, pursuant to sections 309(b) and (d) of the Clean Water Act, 
33 U.S.C. 1319(b) and (d), to obtain injunctive relief and impose civil 
penalties against Roger D. Williams for alleged violation of sections 
301 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311 and 1344, by 
unlawfully discharging and/or controlling and directing the discharge 
of dredged and fill materials into waters of the United States at a 40-
acre site located on Sondej Avenue immediately east of Bowers Hill Auto 
Parts and south of South Military Highway in the city of Chesapeake, 
Norfolk County, Virginia. The proposed Consent Decree requires Roger D. 
Williams to perform a restoration project at the site.
    The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to 
this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of 
publication of this notice. Please address comments to: Yvette M. 
Wilkerson-Barron, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division, Environmental Defense Section, P.O. Box 23986, 
Washington, DC 20026-3986, and refer to United States v. Roger D. 
Williams, DJ Reference No. 90-5-1-1-4518.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office 
of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Virginia, 193 Walter E. Hoffman United States Courthouse, 600 Granby 
Street, Norfolk, Virginia.

Letitia J. Grishaw,
Chief Environmental Defense Section, Environment and Natural Resources 
Division, United States Department of Justice.
  
[FR Doc. 00-12481 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE: SHEIKHA LATEEFAH ALSABAH,

Appellant

______________________ 

2015-1264

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in No. 29/234,717.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

DAVID E. DOUGHERTY, Hauptman Ham, LLP, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellant. Also represented by SEAN 

A. PASSINO. 

MONICA BARNES LATEEF, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, 

argued for appellee Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by 

THOMAS W. KRAUSE, MARY L. KELLY, JAMIE LYNNE 

SIMPSON. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 
 

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, and O’MALLEY,

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

October 16, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court