alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION
Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his
capacity as an officer of Arrow-Magnolia International, Inc. ("Arrow"), that, to
his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Arrow on Form 10-KSB for the period
ended December 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in
such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operation of Arrow.


Date:  March 30, 2004	                By:     /s/ Mark Kenner
		                            ------------------------------
                                        Mark Kenner, Chairman and Chief
                                        		Executive Officer



Date:  March 30, 2004	                By:   /s/  Fred Kenner
		                             ------------------------------
                                         Fred Kenner, President and
                                        		Chief Financial Officer
§ 110.142 Nantucket Harbor, Mass. ( a ) *The anchorage grounds.* In the Nantucket Harbor, beginning at a point 210 yards, 90°, from Brant Point Light; thence easterly to latitude 41°17′23′′, longitude 70°05′14.5′′; thence southerly to latitude 41°17′03′′, longitude 70°05′14.5′′; thence southwesterly to latitude 41°16′54′′, longitude 70°05′23′′; thence northwesterly to latitude 41°16′55′′, longitude 70°05′31′′; thence northeasterly to latitude 41°17′07.5′′, longitude 70°05′27′′; thence northeasterly to the point of beginning.
( b ) *The regulations.* The anchorage is for the use of commercial and pleasure craft. Temporary floats or buoys for marking anchors or moorings in place will be allowed. Fixed mooring piles or stakes are prohibited. The anchoring of vessels including the placing of anchors and moorings is subject to the supervision and approval of the local harbor master.
#### Daniel and wife *vs*Daniel.

Error to the Fayette Circuit.

Replevin.

*Case*44.

The ease stated.

*Cestui que trusts. Trusts. Legal title.*

*Oct.*17.

Jvdge Beech

delivered the opinion of the Court.

James Daniel and Rachel Venable, in anticipation of an intermarriage between them, conveyed all the estate of the latter to George McDonald, in trust for her separate use and benefit after the intended marriage, and subject to her disposition, by special instructions in writing signed by her to the Trustee. The marriage took place and this action of replevin was brought by Charles Daniel against said James Daniel and his wife Rachel, for a slave belonging to said Rachel before marriage, and 'embraced in the deed of trust to McDonald. Charles Daniel, the plaintiff in replevin, sets up claim to *the*slave-under a parol gift from the defendant Rachel, made subsequent to her intermarriage with the defendant, James. The testimony upon the trial conduced to establish the gift, and the jury, under the instructions of the' Circuit Judge, found the slave for the plaintiff, and judgment *231having been rendered thereon, the defendants have brought the case to this Court for revision.

By an ante-nuptial contract the property of the wife was conveyed to a truslee to her separate use. She gave a portion of it, (a slave,) by parol gift, to another— Held that no legal right passed which would authorize the do-nee to maintain an action at law for the slave.

*Woolley, Einkaid and Bodlay*for plaintiffs: *Robinson Sf Johnson*for defendant.

The only question in the case, which we deem necessary to decide, is whether the defendant, Rachel, by her act alone, without the co-operation of the Trustee, could pass the legal estate in the slave in question. We are very clearly of opinion she could not. The very object of the deed of trust was to vest the legal estate in the Trustee. The estate of the wife is an equitable one, and by her act alone she could, in no view of the case, pass any other. The legal estate, from any thing that appears in the record, is still in George McDonald, the Trustee.

Whether the defendant, Rachel, could or not dispose of her equitable estate in the slave in contest, or authorize the Trustee to pass the legal estate, in any other mode than that specified in the deed, it is not necessary, and we do not now decide. As there was no testimony conducing to prove any legal title irr the slave in the plaintiff, or any right to recover upon any other ground, he was not entitled to recover in this form of action, and the Court consequently erred in the instructions to the jury.

The judgment is, therefore, reversed, and the cause remanded, that a new trial may be had and further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 989 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 989

To amend title XVI of the Social Security Act to clarify that the value 
  of certain funeral and burial arrangements are not to be considered 
  available resources under the supplemental security income program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 26, 2007

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVI of the Social Security Act to clarify that the value 
  of certain funeral and burial arrangements are not to be considered 
  available resources under the supplemental security income program.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN FUNERAL AND BURIAL ARRANGEMENTS NOT CONSIDERED 
              RESOURCES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1613(e)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1382b(e)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(C) If--
            ``(i) an individual or the individual's spouse enters into 
        an irrevocable contract with a provider of funeral goods and 
        services for a funeral;
            ``(ii) the individual or the individual's spouse funds the 
        contract by paying for the goods and services; and
            ``(iii)(I) the funeral provider subsequently places the 
        funds in a trust or in escrow; or
            ``(II) the individual or the individual's spouse 
        establishes an irrevocable trust, and the funeral provider is 
        the named beneficiary of the trust,
then the trust or escrow shall not be considered a resource available 
to the individual.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to payments for supplemental security income benefits under title 
XVI of the Social Security Act for months beginning on or after the 
date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 105 (Wednesday, May 31, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 34735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13473]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-37,587]


Milco Industries, New York, NY; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on April 17, 2000, in response to a worker petition which 
was dated March 30, 2000 on behalf of workers at Milco Industries, New 
York, New York.
    All workers were separated from the subject firm more than one year 
prior to the date of the petition. Section 223 of the Act specifies 
that no certification may apply to any worker whose last separation 
occurred more than one year before the date of the petition. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC this 9th day of May, 2000.
Grant D. Beale,
Program Manager, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-13473 Filed 5-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Editorial Note on Subpart A of Part 5
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart A of part 5 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

§ 5.18 Remedies for retaliation. ( a ) *Administrator request to remedy violation.* When the Administrator finds that any person has discriminated in any way against any worker or job applicant in violation of § 5.5(a)(11) or (b)(5), or caused any person to discriminate in any way against any worker or job applicant in violation of § 5.5(a)(11) or (b)(5), the Administrator will notify the person, any contractors for whom the person worked or on whose behalf the person acted, and any upper tier contractors, as well as the relevant contracting agency(ies) of the discrimination and request that the person and any contractors for whom the person worked or on whose behalf the person acted remedy the violation.
( b ) *Administrator directive to remedy violation and provide make-whole relief.* If the person and any contractors for whom the person worked or on whose behalf the person acted do not remedy the violation, the Administrator in the notification of violation findings issued under § 5.11 or § 5.12 will direct the person and any contractors for whom the person worked or on whose behalf the person acted to provide appropriate make-whole relief to affected worker(s) and job applicant(s) or take appropriate remedial action, or both, to correct the violation, and will specify the particular relief and remedial actions to be taken.
( c ) *Examples of available make-whole relief and remedial actions.* Such relief and remedial actions may include, but are not limited to, employment, reinstatement, front pay in lieu of reinstatement, and promotion, together with back pay and interest; compensatory damages; restoration of the terms, conditions, and privileges of the worker's employment or former employment; the expungement of warnings, reprimands, or derogatory references; the provision of a neutral employment reference; and the posting of a notice to workers that the contractor or subcontractor agrees to comply with the Davis-Bacon Act and Related Acts anti-retaliation requirements.
[88 FR 57743, Aug. 23, 2023]
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Robert Kinloch, President, Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Maverick Minerals Corporation (the
Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)          
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007 (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.

Dated: May 22, 2008



/s/ Robert KinlochRobert
Kinloch Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

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 the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 485 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 485

   Relative to the death of Howard Metzenbaum, former United States 
                     Senator for the State of Ohio.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 14 (legislative day, March 13), 2008

  Mr. Reid (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Brown, Mr. 
 Akaka, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Allard, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bayh, 
    Mr. Bennett, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Bond, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
 Brownback, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Burr, Mr. Byrd, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Cardin, 
  Mr. Carper, Mr. Casey, Mr. Chambliss, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Coburn, Mr. 
Cochran, Mr. Coleman, Ms. Collins, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Corker, Mr. Cornyn, 
 Mr. Craig, Mr. Crapo, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Domenici, 
   Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. 
Feinstein, Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Harkin, 
  Mr. Hatch, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Isakson, Mr. 
Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kyl, Ms. 
  Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. 
   Lincoln, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Martinez, Mr. McCain, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. 
   Menendez, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Murkowski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Nelson of 
 Florida, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Obama, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Reed, Mr. 
 Roberts, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
Sessions, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Smith, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Specter, Ms. Stabenow, 
Mr. Stevens, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Tester, Mr. Thune, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Warner, 
  Mr. Webb, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Wicker, and Mr. Wyden) submitted the 
        following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Relative to the death of Howard Metzenbaum, former United States 
                     Senator for the State of Ohio.

Whereas Howard Metzenbaum served the people of Ohio with distinction for 8 years 
        in the Ohio State Legislature; and
Whereas Howard Metzenbaum served the people of Ohio with distinction for 18 
        years in the United States Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate has heard with profound sorrow and deep 
regret the announcement of the death of the Honorable Howard 
Metzenbaum, former member of the United States Senate.
    Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate communicate these 
resolutions to the House of Representatives and transmit an enrolled 
copy thereof to the family of the deceased.
    Resolved, That when the Senate recesses today, it stand in recess 
as a further mark of respect to the memory of the Honorable Howard 
Metzenbaum.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 72179]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30262]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Friday, December 16, 2011.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance and Enforcement Matters. In the 
event that the times or dates of these or any future meetings change, 
an announcement of the change, along with the new time and place of the 
meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sauntia S. Warfield, (202) 418-
5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-30262 Filed 11-18-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**667 KA 12-02260**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TROY ROSE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PIOTR BANASIAK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Joseph E. Fahey, J.), rendered April 30, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a nonjury trial of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). We conclude that County Court properly refused to suppress defendant’s statement to the arresting officers, which was made without Miranda warnings. The officers’ question concerning the location of the gun did not constitute interrogation ( see People v Chestnut , 51 NY2d 14, 22-23, cert denied 449 US 1018; People v Roseboro , 124 AD3d 1374, 1375) and moreover, the public safety exception to the Miranda rule applied to that question ( see People v Gucla , 18 AD3d 478, 479, lv denied 5 NY3d 789).

We further conclude that the court properly refused to suppress the gun seized from defendant’s backpack during a search incident to defendant’s lawful arrest ( see People v Smith , 59 NY2d 454, 458-459; People v Johnson , 86 AD2d 165, 166-167, affd 59 NY2d 1014). Here, “the circumstances leading to the arrest support a reasonable belief that the suspect may [have been able to] gain possession of a weapon” ( People v Gokey , 60 NY2d 309, 311; see People v Capellan , 38 AD3d 393, 394, lv denied 9 NY3d 873; see generally People v Wylie , 244 AD2d 247, 250-251, lv denied 91 NY2d 946), including defendant’s statement that the gun was in his backpack ( see People v Alvarado , 126 AD3d 803, 804- 805).

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court properly curtailed**-2- 667 KA 12-02260** 

his cross-examination of one of the officers at the suppression hearing with respect to a confidential informant. Defendant was arrested pursuant to a warrant, and the existence or reliability of a confidential informant who allegedly provided information concerning defendant’s location “had nothing to do with the legality of the [arrest or] search and it was, therefore, irrelevant” ( People v Lourdes
, 175 AD2d 958, 958; see People v Alfone , 206 AD2d 775, 776, lv denied 84 NY2d 1028). Inasmuch as a motion to reopen the suppression hearing would not have been successful, defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel based upon counsel’s failure to make such a motion ( see People v Crespo , 117 AD3d 1538, 1539, lv denied 23 NY3d 1035).

Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: June 19, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5581-5582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2097]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-2701-000]


Mountain View Power Partners IV, LLC; Supplemental Notice That 
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 
204 Authorization

January 20, 2011.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding 
Mountain View Power Partners IV, LLC's application for market-based 
rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is February 9, 2011.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a

[[Page 5582]]

document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any 
FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2c6a697e6f6342404542497f595c5c435e586c4a495e4f024b435a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2c6a697e6f6342404542497f595c5c435e586c4a495e4f024b435a">[email protected]</span></a> or call 
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-2097 Filed 1-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
(76 South. 999)

#### HAYS v. CITY of ATTALLA (two cases).

(7 Div. 458, 459.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

June 1, 1917.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; J. E. Blackwood, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
§ 127.008 Letter of intent and operational risk assessment for LNG fuel facilities. ( a ) An owner or operator intending to build a new LNG fuel facility, modify construction of any LNG fuel facility, or reactivate an inactive LNG fuel facility electing to complete an operational risk assessment (ORA) in lieu of a WSA as outlined in § 127.007, must submit an LOI and ORA to the COTP of the zone in which the LNG fuel facility is or will be located at least 1 year prior to the start of LNG transfer operations.
( b ) Each LOI must contain the information in § 127.007(c)(1) through (c)(5).
( c ) The owner or operator who submits an LOI under paragraph (a) of this section must notify the COTP in writing within 15 days of any of the following: ( 1 ) There is any change in the information submitted under paragraph (b) of this section; or
( 2 ) No LNG fuel transfer operations are scheduled within the next 12 months.
( d ) The ORA required by paragraph (a) must: ( 1 ) Be carried out in accordance with Chapter 7 of ISO/TS 18683 and Appendix D of DNVGL-RP-G105; or Chapter 19 of NFPA 59A (all incorporated by reference, see § 127.003); or other industry developed risk assessment method acceptable to the Office of Operating and Environmental Standards, Commandant (CG-OES); and
( 2 ) Consider possible factors affecting the ship/shore interface and port operations described in Section 6 of ISO 28460 (incorporated by reference, see § 127.003).
[87 FR 5690, Feb. 2, 2022]