alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 89 (Monday, May 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 26640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11441]


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

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES


Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities, Arts and 
Artifacts Indemnity Panel Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(P.L. 92-463 as amended) notice is hereby given that a meeting of the 
Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel of the Federal Council on the Arts 
and the Humanities will be held at 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20506, in Room 714, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., on Tuesday, 
May 30, 2000.
    The purpose of the meeting is to review applications for 
Certificates of Indemnity submitted to the Federal Council on the Arts 
and the Humanities for exhibitions beginning after July 1, 2000.
    Because the proposed meeting will consider financial and commercial 
data and because it is important to keep values of objects, methods of 
transportation and security measures confidential, pursuant to the 
authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close 
Advisory Committee Meetings, dated July 19, 1993, I have determined 
that the meeting would fall within exemption (4) of 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and 
that it is essential to close the meeting to protect the free exchange 
of views and to avoid interference with the operations of the 
Committee.
    It is suggested that those desiring more specific information 
contact the Advisory Committee Management Officer, Laura S. Nelson, 
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, or call 202/606-
8322.

Laura S. Nelson,
Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-11441 Filed 5-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 703-01-M
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. 

# ACTION:

Notice to delete a record system. 

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Logistics Agency is proposing to delete a system of records from its inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. 

# DATES:

This proposed action will be effective without further notice on June 14, 2000 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination. 

# ADDRESSES:

Send comments to the Privacy Act Officer, Headquarters, Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: CAAR, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 2533, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Susan Salus at (703) 767-6183. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Defense Logistics Agency notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the                     **Federal Register**                     and are available from the address above.                 

The proposed deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report. 

Dated: May 9, 2000. 

L.M. Bynum, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. 

## S322.53 DMDC 

### System name: 

                        Defense Debt Collection Data Base                         *(May 11, 1999, 64 FR 25310).*

Reason: These records have been transferred to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service and are now being maintained under Privacy Act system of records T7332, Defense Debt Management System. 

[FR Doc. 00-12070 Filed 5-12-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-10-F
#### Donna Brosius, Respondent, v Robert Brosius, Appellant.

[697 NYS2d 321]

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated December 1, 1998, which denied his motion to vacate an amended judgment of the same court, dated December 21, 1994, entered upon his default in appearing at a hearing and following an inquest, *inter alia,*for arrears of child support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A party attempting to vacate a default judgment must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense *(see, Roussodimou v Zafiriadis,*238 AD2d 568; *Putney v Pearlman,*203 AD2d 333). The defendant failed to satisfy that standard in this case. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
#### § 1910.152 [Reserved]
PUBLIC LAW 113–156—AUG. 8, 2014 128 STAT. 1829 

Public Law 113–156 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To allow the Secretary of the Treasury to rely on State examinations for certain 

financial institutions, 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 ‘‘Money Remittances Improvement 

Act of 2014’’. 

SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE AUTHORITY FOR CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. 

(a) COMPLIANCE WITH REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ON MONETARY INSTRUMENT TRANSACTIONS.—Section 5318(a) of title 31, 

United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(2) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7); and 

(3) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following: 

‘‘(6) rely on examinations conducted by a State supervisory 

agency of a category of financial institution, if the Secretary 

determines that— 

‘‘(A) the category of financial institution is required 

to comply with this subchapter and regulations prescribed 

under this subchapter; or 

‘‘(B) the State supervisory agency examines the category of financial institution for compliance with this subchapter and regulations prescribed under this subchapter; 

and’’. 

(b) COMPLIANCE WITH REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.—Section 128 of Public Law 91–508 (12 

U.S.C. 1958) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘this title’’ and inserting ‘‘this chapter and 

section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 

1829b)’’; and 

(2) by inserting at the end the following: ‘‘The Secretary 

may rely on examinations conducted by a State supervisory 

agency of a category of financial institution, if the Secretary 

determines that the category of financial institution is required 

to comply with this chapter and section 21 of the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Act (and regulations prescribed under this 

chapter and section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act), 

or the State supervisory agency examines the category of financial institution for compliance with this chapter and section 

Money 

Remittances 

Improvement Act 

of 2014. 

12 USC 1951 

note. 

Aug. 8, 2014 

[H.R. 4386] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
128 STAT. 1830 PUBLIC LAW 113–156—AUG. 8, 2014 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4386: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

May 6, considered and passed House. 

Aug. 1, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (and regulations prescribed under this chapter and section 21 of the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Act).’’. 

(c) CONSULTATION WITH STATE AGENCIES.—In issuing rules 

to carry out section 5318(a)(6) of title 31, United States Code, 

and section 128 of Public Law 91–508 (12 U.S.C. 1958), the Secretary of the Treasury shall consult with State supervisory agencies. 

Approved August 8, 2014. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
#### EVANS v YOUNGSTOWN (city)

Ohio Appeals, Seventh Dist, Mahoning Co

Decided March 22, 1929

Nathan Kaufman, Youngtsown, for Evans.

W B Spagnola, Youngstown, for City..

*294ROBERTS, J.

It is provided in Section 3, Article XVIII, of the Constitution of Ohio, that:

(Here follows quotation)

Section 3628 General Code, in enumeration of municipal powers provides:

(Here follows quotation)

So that we have this concrete proposition presented in issue as to whether or not a municipal ordinance is void which provides for a penalty in excess of five hundred dollars, although the penalty was not imposed excessively in the case under consideration. This proposition has been under the consideration of several courts of appeals, one holding that this law is not operative or effective to control in cities operating under a charter government, and another that while the fine exceeded five hundred dollars, the cáse generally was affirmed and the cause remanded to the lower court for the imposition of sentence within the limits of the statute.

Another court, however, thát of the First Appellate District of Ohio, sitting in Clinton County, in the case of George Brannon v. City of Wilmington, Ohio Law Bull. March 25, 1929 (7 Abs. 136) has recently held differently upon this issue. In this case the fine was only one hundred dollars. The court held that owing to the fact that the ordinance authorized a fine of not to exceed one thousand dollars, and this being in excess of the power of municipalities as provided under Section 3628 G. C., which has just been read, that the ordinance was wholly void and invalid. Counsel for the defendant cite the Village of Struthers v. Sokol, 108 O. S., 263, in support of the ordinance, but this case involved a conflict between the ordinance and the Crabbe and Miller Acts and not the conflict between the ordinance and Section 3628 limiting power to fine, and it is not thought applicable to the present issue. Counsel for the city ignore the refusal of the Supreme Court to order the record certified in Brannon v. Wilmington, which is a more recent case than Marko v. City of Youngstown, (6 Abs. 477) which held otherwise.

This case of Brannon v. Wilmington, to which reference has just been made, and which holds the ordinance invalid, was followed by an application to the Supreme Court to order the record certified, which was overruled. It is, therefore, a reasonable deduction that the Supreme Court did not find that error had probably intervened in the decision made by .the Court of Appeals.

We feel constrained,. under the circumstances, the Supreme Court having declined to order the record certified in this case, to follow that decision, which is done, and the judgment of the lower court is reversed and final judgment entered.

Pollock and Farr, JJ, concur.
#### § 1472.100 What does this part do?

This part carries out the portion of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. 701 *et seq.,* as amended) that applies to grants. It also applies the provisions of the Act to cooperative agreements and other financial assistance awards, as a matter of Federal Government policy.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 32


              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 Kellwood Company (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ended January 29, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the
undersigned hereby individually certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of our knowledge:

         (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 as of and for the period covered in the
         Report.



       /s/ Hal J. Upbin
       ----------------------------------------------------------------
       Hal J. Upbin, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


       March 16, 2005



       /s/ W. Lee Capps, III
       ----------------------------------------------------------------
       W. Lee Capps, III, Executive Vice President Finance and Chief Financial
       Officer


       March 16, 2005


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other 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 Kellwood
Company and will be retained by Kellwood Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-K and shall not be
considered filed as part of the Form 10-K.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification ofthe Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Herbert Lindo,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report ofKenilworth Systems Corporation on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairlypresents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Kenilworth Systems Corporation.
| By:    | /s/ Herbert Lindo       |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
| Name:  | Herbert Lindo           |   |
| Title: | Chief Financial Officer |   |
| Date:  | August 25, 2006         |   |

 

----
§ 18.40 Notice of hearing. ( a ) *In general.* Except when the hearing is scheduled by calendar call, the judge must notify the parties of the hearing's date, time, and place at least 14 days before the hearing. The notice is sent by regular, first-class mail, unless the judge determines that circumstances require service by certified mail or other means. The parties may agree to waive the 14-day notice for the hearing.
( b ) *Date, time, and place.* The judge must consider the convenience and necessity of the parties and the witnesses in selecting the date, time, and place of the hearing.
§ 91.1003 Management contract between owner and program manager. Each owner must have a contract with the program manager that— ( a ) Requires the program manager to ensure that the program conforms to all applicable requirements of this chapter.
( b ) Provides the owner the right to inspect and to audit, or have a designee of the owner inspect and audit, the records of the program manager pertaining to the operational safety of the program and those records required to show compliance with the management specifications and all applicable regulations. These records include, but are not limited to, the management specifications, authorizations, approvals, manuals, log books, and maintenance records maintained by the program manager.
( c ) Designates the program manager as the owner's agent to receive service of notices pertaining to the program that the FAA seeks to provide to owners and authorizes the FAA to send such notices to the program manager in its capacity as the agent of the owner for such service.
( d ) Acknowledges the FAA's right to contact the owner directly if the Administrator determines that direct contact is necessary.
#### § 1450.13 Exploration of compromise.

FMCS may attempt to effect compromise, preferably during the course of personal interviews, in accordance with the standards set forth in part 103 of the Federal Claims Collection Standards (4 CFR part 103).
#### Estate of Benjamin A. Kavanagh.

*(Surrogate’s Court, New York County,*

*Filed June 1, 1889.)*

^Collateral híheritahcb tax—What legacy subject to.

A bequest of $500 was made “to the Missionary Congregation of St. Paul the Apostle, in the city of New York, known as the Paulist Fathers;” there was no proof of any special exemption, either by charter or any special act, of the beneficiaries from the collateral inheritance tax; no provision of chapter 13 of the Revised Statutes, nor of any amendment thereof, was shown to take this legacy out of the general rule declared in section 1. *Neld,*the said legacy is subject to the tax imposed by the collateral inheritance tax act.

*Bliss & Schley,*for the Sisters of the Poor, etc.; *J. P. Campbell,*for proponent.

Ransom, S.

The comptroller objects to the confirmation •of the appraiser’s report, upon the ground that the appraiser has failed to report, as subject to taxation, a legacy of $500 “to the Missionary Congregation of St. Paul the Apostle, in the city of New York, known as the Paulist Fathers,” and asks to have such legacy included in said report.

In the case of *Catlin et al.*v. *Trustees of Trinity College, and Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of St. Paul’s Protestant Episcopal Church, etc.*(22 N. Y. State Rep., 189), the •court of appeals held that “when, therefore, a corporation not exempted from a taxation by its charter, or some special enactment, but governed by the general law, claims •exemption, it must be able to point' to some provision in •chapter 13 (of the Revised Statutes), or to some amendment which takes it out of the general rule declared in section 1, or else its claim must be disallowed. * * * It has never been the general policy of the state to wholly exempt the property, either real or personal, of incorporated churches, colleges or charitable institutions, from taxation. * * * Complete exemption, where adopted, has been accomplished through special acts applicable to particular and specified corporations. We know of no general statute exempting the personal property of religious societies, or of colleges, from taxation, and we are of opinion that neither St. Paul’s church nor Trinity college was; ‘exempted by law from taxation, ’ within the collateral inheritance act of 1887.”

In the case at bar, there is no proof of any special exemption, either by charter or by any special act, and under the -decision before quoted, the legatees’ claim must be disallowed.

*405The bequest to the congregation known as the “Paulist Fathers ” must be held to be subject to the tax imposed by the collateral inheritance tax act.
#### § 1471.140 How do I know if a person is excluded?

Check the *Excluded Parties List System (EPLS)* to determine whether a person is excluded. The General Services Administration (GSA) maintains the *EPLS* and makes it available, as detailed in subpart E of this part. When a Federal agency takes an action to exclude a person under the nonprocurement or procurement debarment and suspension system, the agency enters the information about the excluded person into the *EPLS.*
#### Ernest A. L’Ecluse, Respondent, *v.*Thyrza B. F. Fowler et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Others.

Argued March 22, 1937;

decided April 27, 1937.

*470
      *Walter E. Hope, John A. Kelly*and *F. Trowbridge vom Baur*for appellants.

*Frederick W. Sparks, Roy C. Gasser*and *William H. Hayes*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, O’Brien, Hhbbs, Loughran and Rippey, JJ.; Crane, Ch. J., and Finch, J., dissent as to that part of the judgment which gives five per cent commission upon anything over $300 per acre; otherwise concur for affirmance.
§ 1614.305 Consideration procedures. ( a ) Once a petition is filed, the Commission will examine it and determine whether the Commission will consider the decision of the MSPB. An agency may oppose the petition, either on the basis that the Commission should not consider the MSPB's decision or that the Commission should concur in the MSPB's decision, by filing any such argument with the Office of Federal Operations and serving a copy on the petitioner within 15 days of receipt by the Commission.
( b ) The Commission shall determine whether to consider the decision of the MSPB within 30 days of receipt of the petition by the Commission's Office of Federal Operations. A determination of the Commission not to consider the decision shall not be used as evidence with respect to any issue of discrimination in any judicial proceeding concerning that issue.
( c ) If the Commission makes a determination to consider the decision, the Commission shall within 60 days of the date of its determination, consider the entire record of the proceedings of the MSPB and on the basis of the evidentiary record before the Board as supplemented in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section, either: ( 1 ) Concur in the decision of the MSPB; or
( 2 ) Issue in writing a decision that differs from the decision of the MSPB to the extent that the Commission finds that, as a matter of law: ( i ) The decision of the MSPB constitutes an incorrect interpretation of any provision of any law, rule, regulation, or policy directive referred to in 5 U.S.C. 7702(a)(1)(B); or
( ii ) The decision involving such provision is not supported by the evidence in the record as a whole.
( d ) In considering any decision of the MSPB, the Commission, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7702(b)(4), may refer the case to the MSPB for the taking of additional evidence within such period as permits the Commission to make a decision within the 60-day period prescribed or provide on its own for the taking of additional evidence to the extent the Commission considers it necessary to supplement the record.
( e ) Where the EEOC has differed with the decision of the MSPB under § 1614.305(c)(2), the Commission shall refer the matter to the MSPB.
**Exhibit 10.47**

 

**CERTIFICATE OF AWARD**

 

**LG&E Energy Long-Term Performance Unit Plan**

 

**200X-200X**

**Performance Unit Award**

 

<Officer Name> has been awarded XX,XXX

LG&E performance units effective

January 1, 20XX.

 

Subject to terms and conditions of the plan, these performance unitsare payable in cash.

 

 
| /s/  Victor A. Staffieri |                                                |   |
|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Victor  A. Staffieri     |                                                |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer | <Officer Name>                                |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | Original  – Employee                           |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | Signed  Copy – Employee Compensation File |

 

----
[No. 20849-4-III.

Division Three.

December 10, 2002.]

#### *In the Matter of the Parentage of*Antonia L. DeRose. The State of Washington, *on the relation of Antonia L. DeRose, Petitioner,*v. Anthony W. Roberts, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Asotin County, No. 89-5-00019-5, William D. Acey, J., entered January 14, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Brown, C.J., concurred in by Kurtz and Kato, JJ.