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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 1 

Expressing the sense of Congress that an artistic tribute to commemorate 

the speech given by President Ronald Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate 

on June 12, 1987, should be placed within the United States Capitol. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. ALLARD submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that an artistic tribute 

to commemorate the speech given by President Ronald 

Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate on June 12, 1987, 

should be placed within the United States Capitol. 

Whereas the people of the United States successfully defended freedom and democracy for over 40 years in a 

global Cold War against an aggressive Communist tyranny; 

Whereas President Ronald Wilson Reagan’s demonstration of 

unwavering personal conviction during this conflict served 

to inspire millions of people throughout the United States 

and around the world to seek democracy, freedom, and 

greater individual liberty; and 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•SCON 1 IS 

Whereas President Reagan’s determined stand against the 

Soviet Union during his 8 years as President served as 

the catalyst for the collapse of the Soviet Union: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that an artis3 tic tribute to commemorate the speech given by President 

4 Ronald Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate on June 12, 

5 1987, during which he uttered the immortal words, ‘‘Mr. 

6 Gorbachev, tear down this wall!’’, should be placed within 

7 the United States Capitol. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
§ 2700.76 Interlocutory review. ( a ) *Procedure.* Interlocutory review by the Commission shall not be a matter of right but of the sound discretion of the Commission. Procedures governing petitions for review of temporary reinstatement orders are found at § 2700.45(f). ( 1 ) Review cannot be granted unless: ( i ) The judge has certified, upon his own motion or the motion of a party, that his interlocutory ruling involves a controlling question of law and that in his opinion immediate review will materially advance the final disposition of the proceeding; or
( ii ) The Judge has denied a party's motion for certification of the interlocutory ruling to the Commission, and the party files with the Commission a petition for interlocutory review within 30 days of the Judge's denial of such motion for certification.
( 2 ) In the case of either paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section, the Commission, by a majority vote of the full Commission or a majority vote of a duly constituted panel of the Commission, may grant interlocutory review upon a determination that the Judge's interlocutory ruling involves a controlling question of law and that immediate review may materially advance the final disposition of the proceeding. Interlocutory review by the Commission shall not operate to suspend the hearing unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. Any grant or denial of interlocutory review shall be by written order of the Commission.
( b ) *Petitions for interlocutory review.* Where the Judge denies a party's motion for certification of an interlocutory ruling and the party seeks interlocutory review, a petition for interlocutory review shall be in writing and shall not exceed 15 pages. A copy of the Judge's interlocutory ruling sought to be reviewed and of the Judge's order denying the petitioner's motion for certification shall be attached to the petition.
( c ) *Briefs.* When the Commission grants interlocutory review, it shall also issue an order which addresses page limits on briefs and the sequence and schedule for filing of initial briefs, and, if permitted by the order, reply briefs.
( d ) *Scope of review.* Unless otherwise specified in the Commission's order granting interlocutory review, review shall be confined to the issues raised in the Judge's certification or to the issues raised in the petition for interlocutory review.
[58 FR 12164, Mar. 3, 1993, as amended at 64 FR 48714, Sept. 8, 1999; 67 FR 18485, Apr. 16, 2002; 71 FR 44209, Aug. 4, 2006]
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
133917 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133917 COA: 273214 Oakland CC: 2006-008454-AR MARVIN DELAINE ROBINSON, 43 rd DC: 06HP0065-FY

Defendant-Appellant,

and

AISHIA MONIQUE NOBLE, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 3, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0830 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 10, 2007

Clerk
#### PERELMAN v MALLY

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10876.

Decided Oct 13, 1930

Kenneth & Guild, for Perelman.

R. W. Price and J. Ogrin, Cleveland, for Mally.

Judges JUSTICE & CROW' (3rd Dist) and MAUCK (4th Dist) sitting.

MAUCK, J.

It is enough to say, in disposing of two assignments of error, that the amount of the judgment is not excessive and that there was an abundance of evidence to carry the case to the jury, and there was no testimony on the part of the plaintiff that raised a presumption of contributory negligence against him..

The only substantial question in issue involves the charge of the court. Not all of the errors in the court’s charge are complained of in the brief or in oral argument, but the charge is clearly erroneous in several particulars. The Court erroneously brought into his instructions to the jury an ordinance relating to east and west traffic in contrast with north and south traffic, which undertakes to give east and west traffic the right of way at intersections. This ordinance was neither pleaded nor proved nor was the substance thereof urged as a ground of complaint by the plaintiff below. Reference to it in the court’s instructions was consequently error. If the ordinance had been properly presented to the jury, however, it should have been accompanied by the • saving provisions laid down in Heidle vs. Baldwin, 118 Oh St 375. *No*complaint has been made of these errors, but complaint has been made of the further charge by the court to the effect that violations of this and other ordinances referred to created a liability against the defendant. This was wrong. A violation of ah ordinance .creates a prima facie case of negligence, but not a prima facie case of liability. Schell vs. DuBois, 94 Oh St 93.

As the disposition of this case .requires a new trial, attention is called to a further error in the charge to the .prejudice of the defendant in error. The court erroneously instructed the jury that the plaintiff was bound to disprove contributory negligence. On re-trial this error - should be avoided. The charge is open generally to the criticism that it was entirely too long and that clarity was sacrificed to length.

For error in the court’s instruction to the jury the judgment is reversed and the case remanded .for a new trial.

Carr and Justice,- JJ, concur.
Exhibit
      32.2 Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350




CERTIFICATION
        OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Citizens First
      Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007,
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report") I, Steve Marcum, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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.











By:
            /s/
                Steve MarcumSteve
                MarcumChief
                Financial OfficerDate:
            November
                14, 2007
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Women's Wartime Hours of Work: The Effect on Their Factory Performance and Home Life

              																	United States. Women's Bureau. 						*Women's Wartime Hours of Work: The Effect on Their Factory Performance and Home Life : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 208*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1947,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5479,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
795 A.2d 376

#### HOMESTEAD INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner v. PENJERDEL REFRIGERATION COMPANY and Episcopal Hospital, Respondent.

No. 996 MAL 2001.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 23, 2002.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 23rd day of April 2002, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. It is further ordered that this matter be consolidated with *State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Craley,*No. 28 MAP 2002 and *Motorists Mutual Insurance Co. v. Pinkerton et al,*No. 20 WAP 2002.
§ 37.113 What procedure does the Department follow to suspend, terminate, withhold, deny or discontinue WIA Title I financial assistance? Any action to suspend, terminate, deny or discontinue WIA Title I financial assistance must be limited to the particular political entity, or part thereof, or other recipient (or grant applicant) as to which the finding has been made, and must be limited in its effect to the particular program, or part thereof, in which the noncompliance has been found. No order suspending, terminating, denying or discontinuing WIA Title I financial assistance will become effective until: ( a ) The Director has issued a Final Determination under § 37.100 or Notification of Breach of Conciliation Agreement under § 37.104;
( b ) There has been an express finding on the record, after opportunity for a hearing, of failure by the grant applicant or recipient to comply with a requirement imposed by or under the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIA or this part;
( c ) A Final Decision has been issued by the Secretary, the Administrative Law Judge's decision and order has become the Final Decision of the Secretary, or the Final Determination or Notification of Conciliation Agreement has been deemed the Final Decision of the Secretary, under § 37.112(b); and
( d ) The expiration of 30 days after the Secretary has filed, with the committees of Congress having legislative jurisdiction over the program involved, a full written report of the circumstances and grounds for such action.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 32075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12782]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Notice of Proposed Change to Section IV of the Field Office 
Technical Guide (FOTG) of the Natural Resources Conservation Service in 
Tennessee

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in Tennessee, 
U.S. Department of Agriculture.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of proposed changes in Section IV of the 
FOTG of the NRCS in Tennessee for review and comment.

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

SUMMARY: It is the intention of NRCS in Tennessee to issue a revised 
conservation practice standard, Filter Strip (Code 393), in Section IV 
of the FOTG.

DATES: Comments will be received on or before June 21, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Inquire in writing to James W. Ford, 
State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 
675 U.S. Courthouse, 801 Broadway, Nashville, Tennessee 37203. Copies 
of the practice standards will be made available upon written request.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after 
enactment of the law to NRCS state technical guides used to perform 
highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law shall be made 
available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS 
in Tennessee will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. 
Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in 
Tennessee regarding disposition of those comments and a final 
determination of change will be made.

    Dated: May 10, 2000.
James W. Ford,
State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 
Nashville, Tennessee.
[FR Doc. 00-12782 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-M
#### § 2580.412-17 Bonds over $500,000.

The Labor-Management Services Administrator, after due notice and opportunity for hearing to all interested parties, and after consideration of the record, may prescribe an amount in excess of $500,000, which in no event shall exceed 10 per centum of the funds “handled.” Any requirement for bonding in excess of $500,000 shall be according to such other regulations as may be prescribed.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                  Exhibit 10.14A

                            FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
            REESTABLISHED RETIREMENT PLAN FOR HOURLY EMPLOYEES OF 
                        KEWAUNEE SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION

     WHEREAS, Kewaunee Scientific Corporation (the "Company") maintains the
Reestablished Retirement Plan for Hourly Employees of Kewaunee Scientific
Corporation (the "Plan");

     WHEREAS, the Plan was amended and restated in its entirety effective May 1,
1989; and

     WHEREAS, the Company now wishes to amend the Plan;

     NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority reserved to the Company under
Section 12.2, the Plan be and hereby is amended, effective May 1, 1989, in the
following particulars:

     1.  Section 6.2(a) is amended by adding the following as new paragraphs at
the end:

     "Notwithstanding the foregoing, a participant's or prior plan participant's
benefit amount as determined above shall be offset by the value of the benefit
distributed to or on behalf of the participant from the prior plan, if any."
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44689

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

ALONDRA SALINAS RODRIGUEZ

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 521

Filed: July 17, 2017

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Melissa Moody , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and 365

- day jail sentence for petit theft, affirmed

.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lo ri A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Alondra Salinas Rodriguez was found guilty of petit theft , Idaho Code § 18

- 2407 . The

district court imposed a 365

- day sentence in the count y jail

. Rodriguez appeals, contending that

her sentence is excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well es tablished and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707 , 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing2 the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Rodriguez ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Herbert Lindo, certifythat:

 

1.          I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-Kof Kenilworth Systems Corporation;

 

2.          Based on my knowledge, this annual reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements are made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this annual report;

 

3.          Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this annual report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this annual report;

 

4.          The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) andI am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

a)             Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures or caused such disclosure controls to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

b)            Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)             Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.          The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)             All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)            Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:   March 12 , 2010 | By:    | /s/ Herbert Lindo       |
|-----------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                              |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

***Remainder of page intentionally left blank***

 

1

----
§ 2702.10 Waivers and reduction of fees. ( a ) *Automatic fee waiver.* No fees shall be charged to any requester, including commercial use requesters, if the anticipated cost of processing and collecting the fee would be equal to or greater than the fee itself. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that fees of less than $20 shall be waived. If the Commission fails to comply with the time limits in § 2702.4(b), including the requirements related to the 10-day extension for unusual circumstances, search fees will not be assessed and, for requesters described in 30 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II), duplication fees will not be assessed. See Commission's FOIA Guide for further information.
( b ) *Request for fee waiver or reduction.* A request for fee waiver or reduction shall be made in writing and shall address the criteria outlined in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section. The request should be submitted with the original request for information filed pursuant to § 2702.3(a). If the request is granted, the documents shall be furnished without any charge, or at a charge reduced below the fees otherwise applicable. A waiver or reduction of fees will be granted only if disclosure of the information is determined to be in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the Government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester. The following six factors will be employed in determining when such fees shall be waived or reduced: ( 1 ) The subject of the request: Whether the subject of the requested records concerns “the operations or activities of the Government;”
( 2 ) The informative value of the information to be disclosed: Whether the disclosure is “likely to contribute” to an understanding of Government operations or activities;
( 3 ) The contribution to an understanding of the subject by the general public likely to result from disclosure: Whether disclosure of the requested information will contribute to “public understanding;”
( 4 ) The significance of contribution to public understanding: Whether the disclosure is likely to contribute “significantly” to public understanding of Government operations or activities;
( 5 ) The existence and magnitude of a commercial interest: Whether the requester has a commercial interest that would be furthered by the requested disclosure; and
( 6 ) The primary interest in disclosure: Whether the magnitude of any identified commercial interest of the requester is sufficiently large, in comparison with the public interest in disclosure, that disclosure is “primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.”
( c ) *Determination.* The Chief FOIA Officer, upon request, shall determine whether a waiver or reduction of fees is warranted.