alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 2200.62 Postponement of hearing. ( a ) *Motion to postpone.* A hearing may be postponed by the Judge on the Judge's own initiative or for good cause shown upon the motion of a party. A motion for postponement shall state the position of the other parties, either by a joint motion or by a representation of the moving party. The filing of a motion for postponement does not automatically postpone a hearing. The form and content of such motions shall comply with § 2200.40.
( b ) *Grounds for postponement.* A motion for postponement grounded on conflicting engagements of counsel or employment of new counsel shall be promptly filed.
( c ) *When motion must be received.* A motion to postpone a hearing must be received at least 10 days prior to the hearing. A motion for postponement received less than 10 days prior to the hearing will generally be denied unless good cause is shown for late filing.
( d ) *Postponement in excess of 60 days.* No postponement in excess of 60 days shall be granted without the concurrence of the Chief Administrative Law Judge. The original of any motion seeking a postponement in excess of 60 days shall be filed with the Judge and a copy sent to the Chief Administrative Law Judge.
§ 38.62 Authority and procedures for pre-approval compliance reviews. ( a ) As appropriate and necessary to ensure compliance with the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIOA or this part, the Director may review any application, or class of applications, for Federal financial assistance under Title I of WIOA, before and as a condition of their approval. The basis for such review may be the assurance specified in § 38.25, information and reports submitted by the grant applicant under this part or guidance published by the Director, and any relevant records on file with the Department.
( b ) When awarding financial assistance under Title I of WIOA, departmental grantmaking agencies must consult with the Director to review whether the CRC has issued a Notice to Show Cause under § 38.66(b) or a Final Determination against an applicant that has been identified as a probable awardee.
( c ) The grantmaking agency will consider, in consultation with the Director, the information referenced in paragraph (b) of this section, along with any other information provided by the Director in determining whether to award a grant or grants. Departmental grantmaking agencies must consider refraining from awarding new grants to applicants or must consider including special terms in the grant agreement for entities named by the Director as described in paragraph (b) of this section. Special terms will not be lifted until a compliance review has been conducted by the Director, and the Director has approved a determination that the applicant is likely to comply with the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements of WIOA and this part.
( d ) Where the Director determines that the grant applicant for Federal financial assistance under Title I of WIOA, if financially assisted, is not likely to comply with the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements of WIOA or this part, the Director must: ( 1 ) Notify, in a timely manner, the Departmental grantmaking agency and the Assistant Attorney General of the findings of the pre-approval compliance review; and
( 2 ) Issue a Letter of Findings. The Letter of Findings must advise the grant applicant, in writing, of: ( i ) The preliminary findings of the review;
( ii ) The proposed remedial or corrective action under § 38.90 and the time within which the remedial or corrective action should be completed;
( iii ) Whether it will be necessary for the grant applicant to enter into a written Conciliation Agreement as described in §§ 38.91 and 38.93; and
( iv ) The opportunity to engage in voluntary compliance negotiations.
( e ) If a grant applicant has agreed to certain remedial or corrective actions in order to receive WIOA Title I financial assistance, the Department must ensure that the remedial or corrective actions have been taken, or that a Conciliation Agreement has been entered into, before approving the award of further assistance under WIOA Title I. If a grant applicant refuses or fails to take remedial or corrective actions or to enter into a Conciliation Agreement, as applicable, the Director must follow the procedures outlined in §§ 38.95 through 38.97.
§ 4219.12 Employers liable upon mass withdrawal. ( a ) *Liability for de minimis amounts.* An employer shall be liable for *de minimis* amounts to the extent provided in section 4219(c)(1)(D) of ERISA if the employer's initial withdrawal liability was reduced pursuant to section 4209 (a) or (b) of ERISA.
( b ) *Liability for 20-year-limitation amounts.* An employer shall be liable for 20-year-limitation amounts to the extent provided in section 4219(c)(1)(D) of ERISA.
( c ) *Liability for reallocation liability.* An employer shall be liable for reallocation liability if the employer withdrew pursuant to an agreement or arrangement to withdraw from a multiemployer plan from which substantially all employers withdrew pursuant to an agreement or arrangement to withdraw, or if the employer withdrew after the beginning of the second full plan year preceding the termination date from a plan that terminated by the withdrawal of every employer, and, as of the reallocation record date— ( 1 ) The employer has not been completely liquidated or dissolved;
( 2 ) The employer is not the subject of a case or proceeding under title 11, United States Code, or any case or proceeding under similar provisions of state insolvency laws, except that a plan sponsor may determine that such an employer is liable for reallocation liability if the plan sponsor determines that the employer is reasonably expected to be able to pay its initial withdrawal liability and its redetermination liability in full and on time to the plan; and
( 3 ) The plan sponsor has not determined that the employer's initial withdrawal liability or its redetermination liability is limited by section 4225 of ERISA.
( d ) *General exclusion.* In the event that a plan experiences successive mass withdrawals, an employer that has been determined to be liable under this subpart for any component of mass withdrawal liability shall not be liable as a result of the same withdrawal for that component of mass withdrawal liability with respect to a subsequent mass withdrawal.
( e ) *Free-look rule.* An employer that is not liable for initial withdrawal liability pursuant to a plan amendment adopting section 4210(a) of ERISA shall not be liable for *de minimis* amounts or for 20-year-limitation amounts, but shall be liable for reallocation liability in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
( f ) *Payment of initial withdrawal liability.* An employer's payment of its total initial withdrawal liability, whether by prepayment or otherwise, for a withdrawal which is later determined to be part of a mass withdrawal shall not exclude the employer from or otherwise limit the employer's mass withdrawal liability under this subpart.
( g ) *Agreement presumed.* Withdrawal by an employer during a period of three consecutive plan years within which substantially all employers withdraw from a plan shall be presumed to be a withdrawal pursuant to an agreement or arrangement to withdraw unless the employer proves otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsStopping computer crimesTwo new books about intrusions and computer viruses remind us that attacks against our computers on networks are the actions of human beings. Cliff Stoll's book about the hacker who spent a year, beginning in Aug. 1986, attempting to use the Lawrence Berkeley Computer as a stepping-stone for access to military secrets is a spy thriller that illustrates the weaknesses of our password systems and the difficulties in compiling evidence against a hacker engaged in espionage. Pamela Kane's book about viruses that attack IBM PC's shows that viruses are the modern version of the old problem of a Trojan horse attack. It discusses the most famous viruses and their countermeasures, and it comes with a floppy disk of utility programs that will disinfect your PC and thwart future attack.Document ID19920002439Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypePreprint (Draft being sent to journal)AuthorsDenning, Peter J.*(Research Inst. for Advanced Computer Science Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateNovember 28, 1989Subject CategoryComputer Programming And SoftwareReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-188896RIACS-TR-89-47NAS 1.26:188896Accession Number92N11657Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NCC2-387Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19920002439.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Becky Corigliano, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report.

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.

4.

The Registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and

c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant's board of directors:

a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



Date:  March 28, 2005



By   /s/  Becky Corigliano



Becky Corigliano, Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 133 

Celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 28, 2007 

Mr. OBAMA (for himself, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. KERRY, Mr. ALEXANDER, and Mr. 

CORKER) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson. 

Whereas Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson was born in 1939 to 

Bishop W.A. and Mrs. Mary Patterson, Sr., in Humboldt, Tennessee; 

Whereas Bishop Patterson was reared in Memphis, Tennessee, and Detroit, Michigan, and ordained as an elder 

in the Church of God in Christ in 1958 by Bishop J.S. 

Bailey; 

Whereas Bishop Patterson grew in wisdom at the Detroit 

Bible Institute and LeMoyne Owen College in Memphis, 

Tennessee; 

Whereas, in 1962, Bishop Patterson became co-pastor with 

his father of Holy Temple Church of God in Christ in 

Memphis, Tennessee; 


CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 133 ATS 

Whereas, in 1975, Bishop Patterson founded Temple of Deliverance, the Cathedral of the Bountiful Blessings; 

Whereas Temple of Deliverance is now a shining star of both 

the Church of God in Christ and all of the Nation’s communities of faith; 

Whereas Temple of Deliverance, under Bishop Patterson’s 

wise leadership, continues to touch the entire Nation 

through its Bountiful Blessings Ministry; 

Whereas Bishop Patterson reached millions across the globe 

with his direct and spirit-filled messages, encouraging the 

world to ‘‘be healed, be delivered, and be set free’’; 

Whereas Bishop Patterson served as the international leader 

of the Church of God in Christ since November 2000, 

ably leading this denomination of over 6,000,000 members; 

Whereas Bishop Patterson passed away on Tuesday, March 

20, 2007, in Memphis, Tennessee, surrounded by his 

wife, Mrs. Louise Patterson, and his family; 

Whereas Bishop Patterson will be celebrated as an invigorating spiritual leader; and 

Whereas the family of Bishop Patterson, the Temple of Deliverance congregation, the Church of God in Christ, and 

indeed the entire Nation are deeply saddened by the loss 

of this great man: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) expresses the condolences of the Nation to 

3 the family of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson, the 

4 Temple of Deliverance Congregation, and the 

5 Church of God in Christ; and 


CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
3 

•SRES 133 ATS 

1 (2) recognizes the life and accomplishments of 

2 Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson, who guided a church, 

3 led a denomination, and influenced a nation. 

Æ 


CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 18 

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding designation of the month of 

November as ‘‘National Military Family Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. REID (for Mr. INOUYE) submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding designation 

of the month of November as ‘‘National Military Family 

Month’’. 

Whereas military families, through their sacrifices and their 

dedication to the United States and its values, represent 

the bedrock upon which the United States was founded 

and upon which the country continues to rely in these 

perilous and challenging times: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That— 

2 (1) it is the sense of the Senate that the month 

3 of November should be designated as ‘‘National Mili4 tary Family Month’’; and 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 18 IS 

1 (2) the Senate encourages the people of the 

2 United States to observe ‘‘National Military Family 

3 Month’’ with appropriate ceremonies and activities. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
Russell D. White, Ph.D., DABT

Manager, Health Sciences

Research and Scientific Affairs Department

1220 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005

- 4070

USA Telephone 202

- 682

- 8344

Fax 202

- 682

- 8270

Email whiter @api.org www.api.org December 11, 2009

Karl Simon

Division Director Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Mail Code: 6406J Washington, DC 20460

RE: Fuels and Fuel Additives Health Effect s Testing Regulations: Submission of Peer Reviewer Comments and Responses for Draft Study No. 00

- 6130 On Gasoline DIPE Vapor Condensate

Dear Mr. Karl Simon:

The American Petroleum Institute (API), on behalf of the Section 211(b) Research Group (RG), is submitting the following information to EPA as partial fulfillment of the CAA Section 211(b) Alternative Tier 2 requirements of the testing regulation:

Comments from Dr. Thomas Goldsworthy Comments from Dr. Richard Schlesinger RG response to comments

Draf t Study Report No. 00

- 6130 ( Gasoline DIPE Vapor Condensate: A 13

- Week Whole

- Body

Inhalation Toxicity Study In Rats With Neurotoxicity Assessments and 4

- Week In Vivo Genotoxicity And Immunotoxicity Assessments )

When the final report is complete, it will b e submitted to you at the EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Regional Programs Division, as part of the requirements of Clean Air Act Section 211(b)(2) and 211(e) (Docket No. A

- 90

- 07).

Please contact Paula Podhasky (202

- 682

- 8344) or myself if there are questions about this submission.

Regards,

Encl (1): CD containing the files;

a) Comments from Dr. Thomas Goldsworthy b) Comments from Dr. Richard Schlesinger c) RG response to comments d) Study No. 00

- 6130 (Gasoline DIPE Vapor Co ndensate: A 13

- Week Whole

- Body Inhalation Toxicity Study In Rats With Neurotoxicity Assessments and 4

- Week In Vivo Genotoxicity And Immunotoxicity Assessments) e) GFAP Levels in Specific Rat Brain Areas Following A 13

- Week Whole

- Body Inh alation Exposure

to Gasoline DIPE Vapor Condensatef) Immunolo gical Evaluation of Gasoline DIPE Vapor Condensate in Female Sprague Dawley Rats Using the Plaque Forming Cell Assay g) Satellit e Procedure Gasoline DI PE Vapor Condensate Rat Micronucleus Test h) In Vivo

- In Vitro Rat Peripheral Lymphocyte Sister Chromatid Exchange Assay

Cc: Joe Sopata, EPA (via email)
No. 95-3314

 

Seth Paskon, M.D., *

 *

 Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of Missouri.

George Bay, Judy Thompson, *

Jim Hocker, Fern Highley, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Denton Hushaw, Roger Barr, *

Dennis Fiebelman, Leon *

Kreisler, Joe Hayes, Salem *

Memorial District Hospital, *

 *

 Appellees. *

 

Submitted: March 11, 1996

 Filed: July 17, 1996

 

Before MAGILL, HEANEY, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

 

PER CURIAM.

Seth Paskon, a medical doctor, filed a section 1983 claim in federal

court against Salem Memorial District Hospital and several hospital board

directors (defendants) after they denied him medical staff privileges at

the hospital. He alleges that their actions violated his procedural and

substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and his First

Amendment free speech rights. Under supplemental jurisdiction, he also

asserts a state tort claim against the defendants. For the alleged

violations, Paskon seeks only monetary damages, not reinstatement or any

other form of equitable relief.
 After deciding Quackenbush, the Supreme Court also vacated

1

our decision in Warmus v. Melahn, 62 F.3d 252 (8th Cir. 1995), in

which we found Younger abstention applicable to a section 1983

claim seeking damages only. Warmus v. Melahn, 1996 WL 306797 (U.S.

June 10, 1996).

-2-

When Paskon initiated his suit in federal court, he was already

involved in state court review of the defendants' actions. In

consideration of the state proceedings, the district court relied on the

Younger abstention doctrine to dismiss Paskon's complaint. Younger v.

Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971). Recently, in Quackenbush v. Allstate

Insurance Co., 116 S.Ct. 1712 (1996), the Supreme Court decided that a

federal court has the power to abstain from exercising its jurisdiction

only if the relief sought is equitable or otherwise discretionary. Id.

1

at 1728. In light of Quackenbush, the district court's dismissal of

Paskon's claim on abstention grounds cannot stand.

As an alternative basis for affirming the district court's decision,

the defendants urge us to consider the preclusive effect of the

administrative findings and state court review. While we recognize our

authority to affirm a judgment on any ground supported by the record, e.g.,

Waller v. Groose, 38 F.3d 1007, 1008 (8th Cir. 1994), the record in this

case has not been developed adequately for consideration of res judicata.

Specifically, the record does not contain the state court pleadings, the

state court's order vacating the administrative decision, or the hearing

transcript from the subsequent administrative hearing and the record on

appeal. Without these documents, it is impossible to engage in the

appropriate analysis. We thus reverse the district court's dismissal of

Paskon's complaint based on abstention and remand the case for such future

proceedings as the district court deems appropriate.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>   1
 
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in MAPCO Inc.'s Post-Effective
Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 33-13090 on Form S-8,
Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 33-29044 on Form
S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-33217 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No.
33-34044 on Form S-3, and Registration Statement No. 333-20837 on Form S-3 of
our report dated January 27, 1997 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedules of MAPCO Inc., which report
includes an explanatory paragraph relating to certain litigation to which the
Company is a defendant and an explanatory paragraph concerning MAPCO Inc.'s
change during 1995 in its method of accounting for the impairment of long-lived
assets and for long-lived assets to be disposed of to conform with Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 121, appearing in this Annual Report on Form
10-K of MAPCO Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1996.
 
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
 
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Tulsa, Oklahoma
February 24, 1997