alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Debra Johnson, True Name Valerie Chamble, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 905]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pitaro, J.), rendered December 20, 1996, convicting her of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in denying her request for a missing witness charge with respect to an undercover officer’s “ghost”, who was assigned to provide protection to the undercover officer, is without merit. The record does not indicate that the ghost officer possessed knowledge concerning any material issue. Therefore, the defendant failed to establish her entitlement to a missing witness charge *(see, People v Kitching,*78 NY2d 532; *People v Gonzalez,*68 NY2d 424; *People v Profit,*200 AD2d 639). Santucci, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
#### Doris M. Willcox, an Infant, by Bertram W. Willcox, Her Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, *v.*County of Erie, Respondent. Bertram W. Willcox, Appellant, *v.*County of Erie, Respondent.

Submitted October 18, 1937;

decided October 19, 1937.

*Harold J. Adams*for motion.

No one opposed.

Motion granted and appeals dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion, unless appellants file and serve undertaking on appeal and pay ten dollars costs within ten days, in which event the motion is 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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-274-000]

                    Take notice that on May 8, 2000, Reliant Energy Gas Transmission Company (REGT), tendered for filing the following                     *pro forma*                     tariff sheets:                

Pro Forma Second Revised Sheet No. 1

Pro Forma First Revised Sheet No. 59

Pro Forma Original Sheet No. 70

Pro Forma Original Sheet No. 71

Pro Forma Original Sheet No. 72

Pro Forma Original Sheet No. 73

Pro Forma Original Sheet No. 74

Pro Forma Original Sheet No. 75

Pro Forma First Revised Sheet No. 286

Pro Forma Second Revised Sheet No. 289

Pro Forma Revised Sheet No. 290

REGT states that these tariff sheets would institute Rate Schedule ANS to provide automatic nomination (AutoNom) service. REGT has requested that the Commission review this filing in a manner that will permit Rate Schedule ANS to become effective on July 1, 2000.

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).

David P. Boergers

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-12267  Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Lite King Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the Company.

Date: March 10, 2006                    By:      /s/ David L. Norris
                                                 -----------------------
                                        Name:    David L.Norris
                                        Title:   President and
                                                 Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, 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 Lite King Corporation
and will be retained by Lite King Corporation and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 on Form 10-KSB of Lancer
Orthodontics, Inc. for the annual period ended May 31, 2002
(the Report) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof, I, John Dodge, Director of Financial Planning,
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.








/s/ John Dodge
    John Dodge
    Director of Financial Planning
[No. 20288-7-III.

Division Three.

December 26, 2002.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Joyce D. Jones-Jackson, *Appellant,*and Keith L. Jones, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Yakima County, No. 99-3-00529-8, Heather K. Van Nuys, J., entered May 22, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, J., concurred in by Brown, C.J., and Kurtz, J.
----

Action brought on 13 May 2004 by Asklepios Kliniken GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-167/04)

(2004/C 201/36)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 May 2004 by Asklepios Kliniken GmbH, Königstein-Falkenstein (Germany), represented by K. Füßer, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant is a company which specialises in hospital management. It is incorporated under private law and is owned exclusively by private interests. Since January 2003, it has been endeavouring to obtain a decision from the Commission under Article 4(2), (3) or (4) of Regluation (EC) No 659/1999 in relation to alleged aid in favour of publicly-owned hospitals in the Federal Republic of Germany.

The applicant maintains that privately-owned hospitals must generally finance themselves from sums paid under health-care arrangements entered into with the appropriate health-insurance schemes and their central associations and, where applicable, from direct contributions for hospital construction under funding arrangements in place in the relevant Land. By contrast, publicly-owned hospitals also benefit from the fact that their regular operating losses are consistently covered by the relevant public authorities. In the applicant's opinion, those payments constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC which not only is subject to a notification requirement under Article 88(3) EC but is also incompatible with the common market.

The applicant also maintains that the complaint is well founded as the Commission has failed to act notwithstanding a duty to act upon receipt of the complaint.

----
(November 16, 1999)

#### In the Matter of Ronald J. Slocum, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[698 NYS2d 560]

—Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by the Fourth Department in 1970 and maintained an office for the practice of law in Owego, Tioga County.

In furtherance of its investigation of a client complaint filed against respondent and in connection with his alleged failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements (Judiciary Law § 468-a; 22 NYCRR part 118), petitioner, the Committee on Professional Standards, obtained a judicial subpoena duces tecum from this Court directing respondent to appear for an examination under oath before petitioner on October 12, 1999, and to produce relevant records. Respondent did not appear and has not responded to a follow-up telephone call placed to his law office. Petitioner now moves for an order suspending respondent from practice, pursuant to this Court’s rules (22 NYCRR 806.4 [bD, until such time as he complies with the subpoena. Respondent has not replied to the motion made returnable October 25, 1999 and duly served upon him. Under the circumstances presented, we grant the motion.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is suspended from practice pursuant to this Court’s rules (22 NYCRR 806.4 [b]) until such time as he fully complies with the subpoena duces tecum dated September 7, 1999, and until further order of this Court, effective 20 days from the date of this decision; and it is further ordered that, for the period of the suspension, respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of *698another; and he is forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority or to give to another any opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rule (22 NYCRR 806.9) regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys.
#### § 1990.122 Response to petitions.

Whenever the Secretary receives any information submitted in writing by any interested person concerning the inclusion or omission of any substance from the Candidate List, the Secretary shall briefly review the information and any other available data, as defined in § 1990.121(a). The results of the Secretary's review shall be transmitted to the petitioner, together with a short statement of the Secretary's reasons therefor, and made public upon request.

###### Effective Date Note

#### Effective Date Note:

At 48 FR 243, Jan. 4, 1983, § 1990.122 was stayed in order to evaluate the impact of publishing the Candidate List and Priority Lists and to reconsider the criteria used in establishing the lists (see also 47 FR 187, Jan. 5, 1982).
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4967 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4967

  To amend the CARES Act to extend the excise tax holiday period for 
                            aviation taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 7, 2020

   Mr. Blunt introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the CARES Act to extend the excise tax holiday period for 
                            aviation taxes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AVIATION EXCISE TAX HOLIDAY.

    Section 4007(c) of division A of the CARES Act is amended by 
striking ``January 1, 2021'' and inserting ``January 1, 2022''.
                                 <all>
```
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-276-000]

Take notice that on May 10, 2000, Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC (KMIGT) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, the following revised tariff sheets, to be effective June 1, 2000:

## Fourth Revised Volume No. 1-B

First Revised Sheet No. 89A

First Revised Sheet No. 90

Original Sheet No. 90A

First Revised Sheet No. 91

First Revised Sheet No. 92

## Second Revised Volume No. 1-D

First Revised Sheet No. 71A

First Revised Sheet No. 72

Original Sheet No. 72A

First Revised Sheet No. 73

First Revised Sheet No. 74

KMIGT states that the purpose of this filing is to make the changes in KMIGT's Tariff related to Internet communication. KMIGT has also updated related tariff references regarding electronic communications.

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).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-12717 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### § 33.2 Application.

This part applies to all programs or activities conducted by the Department of Labor.
#### WADE v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 10379.

Decided December 9, 1929

Messrs. Thos. M. Frey and Louis J. Pridgeon, Cleveland, for Wade.

Messrs. Harold H. Burton and Fred W. Garmore, Cleveland, for State.

VICKERY, PJ.

Now as to the first ground of error, we think that the officers investigating the place as long as they did this place, and then procuring a search warrant and going into the place and finding liquor that was apparently held for trafficking purposes, when such a state of facts are developed, the matter of the search warrant isn’t very material for under the Miller law in Ohio, if the find in a private dwelling house, with or without a search warrant is liquor, that is used for trafficking in liquor, the place ceases to become a private dwelling house. Aside from that, when the officers have investigated and put those facts up to the officer issuing the search warrant, and the writ is issued, that question has pretty nearly been judicially determined by those who have in charge the issuing of search warrants.

*96We fear that a misconception has been placed upon our decision in the Bender case. In that case the officers had a search warrant that was issued without any investigation, upon an anonymous note written to one of the enforcement officers, and upon a search they found nothing; and so there was not only wa,nt of investigation which would authorize the issuing of a search warrant but after the warrant was wrongfully issued, they then found nothing that would have warranted the issuing of a search warrant. In other words, if in the Bender case even though the search warrant was issued without proper investigation, had they found evidences of trafficking in liquor in the house such as they found in the home of plaintiff in error in the instant case, it might have been utterly immaterial as to the amount of investigation made before they procured the search warrant.

So we think there is nothing in the first contention whatever and the sooner the lawyers representing the defendants in these cases, fail to rely upon that as error in the Court of Appeals, the better it may be for their clients.

Now after getting by the issuing of a search warrant, the only other question is whether the evidence in the case would warrant the conviction of this woman. We do not see how any two minds can differ about that. There was liquor in different places and persons that were habitues of her house or at least visited it, went in sober and came out drunk, and in addition to that, we have the officers’ statement of what this woman told them when the arrest was made. We think there is an abundance of evidence to sustain this conviction.

There being no other errors urged, and those urged not tenable, the Municipal Court was right in its judgment of conviction, and the same will therefore be affirmed.

Levine and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
#### KELLY v METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY

Case No. 86-174 AP

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

March 23, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Max P. Engel for appellant.

Robert A. Ginsburg, Dade County Attorney, and John Mclnnis, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Before SIMONS, KAYE, DONNER, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Dade County Manager to dismiss the Appellant, JIMMIE LEE KELLY, from the services of the County. We affirm.

Appellant was dismissed from his position as an employee of the Solid Waste Disposal Division of the County, County Public Works Department. He requested a review of the dismissal and a full evidentiary hearing was had before a hearing examiner. The examiner issued *176his findings, recommendations and conclusions and concluded that the burden of proof in the case was not met by the County. The examiner recommended that the Appellant be reinstated with a written reprimand. The County Manager then advised the Appellant that the original decision to dismiss him was being upheld. This appeal ensued.

The County Manager is not bound by the findings or conclusions of the examiner and his decision should be upheld where the record contains evidence supporting his decision. *Metropolitan Dade County*v. *Marusa,*295 So.2d 704 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). The record herein contains facts which amply support the action of the County Manager and thus that action must be upheld. Therefore, the County Manager’s decision to dismiss the Appellant from County service is affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 10.40(A)

                         EXTENSION OF CHANGE OF CONTROL
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     Pursuant to Section 1(b) of your Change of Control Employment Agreement
(the "Agreement"), dated as of November 12, 1999, the term of the Agreement, as
stated in Section 1(b) thereof, is hereby extended by three (3) years, so that
the Agreement, as extended, will end on the sixth anniversary of its effective
date (specifically on November 12, 2005) rather than on the third anniversary
date.

     In all other respects, the Agreement is reaffirmed and remains unchanged.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Extension Agreement, pursuant to authorization
from the Board of Directors of the Company, is executed in the Company's name
and on its behalf as of the day and year shown herein.

     Date: June 25, 2002




                                       /s/ James J. Rossi
                                ---------------------------------
                                         James J. Rossi


                                KEWAUNEE SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION


                                By:   /s/ William A. Shumaker
                                    -----------------------------
                                           William A. Shumaker
                                    Its:   President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 23
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement(Form S-8 No. 333-22591) pertaining to The Liberty Corporation Retirement andSavings Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-30151) pertainingto The Performance Incentive Compensation Program, and in the RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 333-84938) pertaining to The Liberty CorporationRetirement and Savings Plan, as Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2002of our report dated February 3, 2004, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements and schedule of the Liberty Corporation included in theannual report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.
 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Greenville, South Carolina
STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE

|   | 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 result of operations of the Company      as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements      included in such Report. |
|--------|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/Charles      S. Conoley                 |
|--------------------------------------------|
| President      and Chief Executive Officer |
| May      12, 2009                          |

----