alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 2988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1399]


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

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    The National Credit Union Administration Board determined that its 
business required the deletion of an additional item from the 
previously announced closed meeting (Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 7, 
page 1647, Tuesday, January 11, 2000) scheduled for Thursday, January 
13, 2000.
    5. One (1) Personnel Action. Closed pursuant to exemptions (2), 
(5), (6), (7) and (9) (B).
    The Board voted two-to-one, Board Member Dollar voting no, that 
agency business required that this item be deleted from the closed 
agenda and that no earlier announcement of this change was possible.
    The National Credit Union Administration Board had announced also, 
that its business required the deletion of the following item from the 
previously announced closed meeting.
    1. Administrative Action under Section 206 of the Federal Credit 
Union Act. Closed pursuant to exemptions (8), (9)(A)(ii) and (9)(B).
    The Board voted unanimously that agency business required that the 
item be deleted from the closed agenda and that no earlier announcement 
of that change was possible.
    The previously announced items were:
    1. Administrative Action under Section 206 of the Federal Credit 
Union Act. Closed pursuant to exemptions (8), (9)(A)(ii) and (9)(B).
    2. Administrative Action under Sections 206 and 208 of the Federal 
Credit Union Act. Closed pursuant to exemptions (8), (9)(A)(ii) and 
(9)(B).
    3. Administrative Actions under part 704 of NCUA's Rules and 
Regulations. Closed pursuant to exemption (8).
    4. Administrative Action under part 703 of NCUA's Rules and 
Regulations. Closed pursuant to exemptions (8), (9)(A)(ii) and (9)(B).
    5. One (1) Personnel Action. Closed pursuant to exemptions (2), 
(5), (6), (7) and (9)(B).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Becky Baker, Secretary of the Board, 
Telephone (703) 518-6304.

Allan Meltzer,
Acting Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-1399 Filed 1-14-00; 3:52 pm]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-M
**Exhibit 32**

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE) 

 

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Dragon Pharmaceutical Inc., a Florida corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Form 10-QSB") that, to the best of their knowledge: 

 

(1) the Form 10-QSB 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

| Dated: :  August 11, 2006 |   |  

/s/ Yanlin Han                                  Yanlin HanChief Executive Officer |
|---------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated: :  August 11, 2006 |   | /s/ Garry Wong                                 Garry WongChief Financial Officer               |
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.

§ 5.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) The regulations contained in this part are promulgated under the authority conferred upon the Secretary of Labor by Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950 (64 Stat. 1267, as amended, 5 U.S.C. appendix) and the Copeland Act (48 Stat. 948; 18 U.S.C. 874; 40 U.S.C. 3145) in order to coordinate the administration and enforcement of labor standards provisions contained in the Davis-Bacon Act (46 Stat. 1494, as amended; 40 U.S.C. 3141 *et seq.*) and its related statutes (“Related Acts”). ( 1 ) A listing of laws requiring Davis-Bacon labor standards provisions can be found at *www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/government-contracts* or its successor website.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( b ) Part 1 of this subtitle contains the Department's procedural rules governing requests for wage determinations and the issuance and use of such wage determinations under the Davis-Bacon Act and its Related Acts.
[88 FR 57731, Aug. 23, 2023]
#### Rice *v.*Zirkle.

*(Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia,*

*Oct. 12, 1875.)*

Contract for Sale of Land — Time Not Essence.*

In a contract for the sale of land free of encumbrance, time is not usually of the essence of the contract, and specific performance may be had at the hands of the seller when it appears that he is able to free the land from such encumbrances.

This was an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of Shenandoah county, refusing to decree specific performance of a certain tract of land sold by Charles E. Bice, appellant, to John H. Zirkle, appellee.

*If. G.*Allen, for appellee.

*M.*Walton, for appellant.

*

See foot-note to Goddin *v.*Vaughn, 14 Gratt. 102 (Va. Rep. Anno.); Griffin *v.*Cunningham, 19 Gratt. 571 (Va. Rep. Anno.).

Staples, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The court is of the opinion that time was not of the essence of the contract between the appellant and the appellee for the sale and purchase of the tract of land in question, and that it being stipulated in the written contract under seal between the parties that the land should “be freed from all incumbrances by the said E. C. Bice at his own proper costs” the purchaser was not bound to part with his pur*95chase money until that was done, but on the other hand the seller ought to have been allowed a reasonable time at his own costs to have removed the incumbrances froxn the land. It appears from the evidence in the record that he had promptly removed the specific incumbrances and a part of the general judgment liens, and it seems that he is the owner of valuable real estate besides the land sold to the appellee which together with his pei'sonal estate is ample to satisfy what remains unsatisfied of the judgment liens. And that he had not only the means but was making bona fide efforts to remove all incumbx'ances from the land in question, and ought to have been allowed a reasonable time to remove them. And an enquiry ought to have been dix'ected at the plaintiff’s costs to ascertain what amount of incumbrance, if any, remained upon the land. The court is of opinion that it was premature to dismiss the plaintiff’s bill, and that the decree be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings to be had therein in conformity with the principles herein declared and that the appellant recover of the appellee his costs in prosecuting his appeal here.

(Endorsement on Back of Opinion.)

“This opinion was not concurred in by the court. The court being equally divided and the decree below therefore affirmed.”
#### The South Royalton Bank *v.*Ezekiel R. Colt.

*Practice.*

The fact, that a cause is pending in the supreme court upon exceptions, does not give that court jurisdicton to grant a new trial in the county court for causes not appearing upon the record, upon a motion for a new trial. The only proper proceeding to secure a new trial in such a case is an original one by the way of a petition under the statute.

*416And such a petition can not be made returnable to a general term of the supreme court.

This was a petition for a new trial in a cause tried in the county court and brought into this court upon exceptions, which are still pending. The petition was made returnable to the General Term, at Woodstock, for the eastern counties. The cause is one pending in the county of Windsor.

The petitioner moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that no original process could properly be made returnable to this term of the supreme court, it being, by law, established merely for the purpose of disposing of the unfinished business in the several counties at the stated terms, and the rehearing of such causes as shall be ordered for re-argument.

The petitioner claimed, that as the cause is still pending in this court upon exceptions, this petition may properly be treated as a motion for a new trial in a cause already pending in the court.

Redfield, Ch. J.

For a short period after the present judicial system was adopted in 1825, by which cases were allowed to pass from the county court into this court, upon exceptions and motion, without the formality of a writ of error, it was customary to entertain motions for new trials in this court, so long as the exceptions were pending. This was done upon the basis of the two courts being practically combined in the trial of causes, the jury trial being had in the county court, and the questions of law, reserved at the trial, being heard in this court.

But it was, upon further examination and consideration, found that this theory was not maintainable. The two courts are as essentially distinct in the trial of causes, as under the former practice of bringing cases into this court by writ of error only.

The judgment in the county court is final, to all intents and for all purposes, the same whether exceptions are allowed or not, until reversed. And it makes no practical difference whether the questions of law reserved at the trial in the county court pass into this court upon exceptions, or writ of error. In neither case has the supreme court any jurisdiction to grant new trials, for matters not appearing upon the record, except upon petition.

We think, therefore, that this petition can only be maintained *417as such, and not upon the ground of any aid or support which it may he able to derive from the pendency of the exceptions.

And as a distinct original proceeding, we think the statute is very explicit, in declaring that the appropriate purpose of the general term does not embrace it, and that it must, therefore, be dismissed, with costs.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 107 (Friday, June 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 35389]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13772]



[[Page 35389]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[CO-200-1220-MA]


Notice of Closure of Public Lands to Motorized Vehicles

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Closure Order for Motorized Vehicle Travel on Public Lands.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that certain public lands in Fremont 
County, Colorado are closed to all types of motorized vehicle 
(including but not limited to 4X4, ATVs, and motorcycles) travel. The 
purpose of this closure is to prevent further disturbance to soils and 
vegetation in and near the riparian area of Badger Creek, reduce 
sedimentation in Badger Creek, and preclude use of a washed out portion 
of the Badger Creek Road #5965 that is a safety hazard. The reason 
behind this closure is the recent washing out of a portion of the 
Badger Creek Road. This has caused some vehicle users to drive in 
Badger Creek as a way to get around the washout. In addition, renewed 
use of the channel of Badger Creek for vehicular passage is occurring 
throughout the closure area. This closure is made under the authority 
of 43 CFR 8364.1.

DATES: Effective immediately and remaining in effect unless revised, 
revoked or amended.

ADDRESSES: Bureau of Land Management, Royal Gorge Field Office, 3170 
East Main Street, Canon City, Colorado 81212; telephone 719-269-8500.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Levi D. Deike, Associate Field Office 
Manager, at the above address and phone number, or John Nahomenuk, 
Outdoor Recreation Planner, Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area, P.O. 
Box 126, Salida, CO 81201; telephone 719-539-7289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The public lands affected by this closure 
are identified as follows:

New Mexico Principal Meridian

T.49N., R.10E.,
    Section 15: SW\1/4\
    Section 16: S\1/2\SE\1/4\
    Section 21: E\1/2\
    Section 22: W\1/2\
    Section 27: NW\1/4\ and that portion of the SW\1/4\ north of the 
railroad right-of-way
    Section 28: that portion of the NE\1/4\, NE\1/4\SE\1/4\ north of 
the railroad right-of-way

    This closure does not apply to emergency, law enforcement, and 
federal or other government vehicles while being used for official or 
emergency purposes, or to any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized 
or otherwise officially approved by BLM. Violation of this order is 
punishable by fine and/or imprisonment as defined in 18 U.S.C. 3571. A 
copy of this Federal Register Notice and a map showing the closure area 
is posted in the Royal Gorge Field Office and in public places in the 
affected area.

Levi D. Deike,
Associate Field Office Manager.
[FR Doc. 00-13772 Filed 6-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
**Exhibit 12.1**

SENIORHOUSING PROPERTIES TRUST

Computationof Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

(dollars inthousands)
| ** **                          | ** ** | **Six Months Ended  June 30,** | ** ** | **Year Ended December 31,** | ** ** |
|-------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------------------|------------|--------------------------------------------|------------|
| ** **                          | ** ** | **2007**                                      | ** ** | **2006**                                   | ** ** | **2006** | ** ** | **2005** | ** ** | **2004** | ** ** | **2003** | ** ** | **2002** | ** ** |
| Earnings:                           |       |                                          |       |                                       |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net income                          |       | $                                             | 38,171     |                                       | $          | 23,146 |   | $ | 66,101 |   | $ | 63,912 |   | $ | 56,742 |   | $ | 45,874 |   | $ | 50,184 |   |
| Fixed charges                       |       | 19,053                                        |       | 22,917                                     |       | 47,020 |   | 46,633 |   | 41,836 |   | 37,899 |   | 30,210 |   |
| Adjusted  earnings                  |       | $                                             | 57,224     |                                       | $          | 46,063 |   | $ | 113,121 |   | $ | 110,545 |   | $ | 98,578 |   | $ | 83,773 |   | $ | 80,394 |   |
|                                |       |                                          |       |                                       |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Fixed charges:                      |       |                                          |       |                                       |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest expense                    |       | $                                             | 19,053     |                                       | $          | 22,917 |   | $ | 47,020 |   | $ | 46,633 |   | $ | 41,836 |   | $ | 37,899 |   | $ | 30,210 |   |
| Ratio of  earnings to fixed charges |       | 3.0                                           | x          | 2.0                                        | x          | 2.4 | x | 2.4 | x | 2.4 | x | 2.2 | x | 2.7 | x |

 

----
Original

No. 7718

#### Raymond Bishop Ethel Bishop v. Town of Milford

June 20, 1977

Raymond Bishop, pro se, by brief, for the plaintiffs.

*William R. Drescher,*of Milford, for the defendant, filed no brief.

Memorandum Opinion

Petition entered March 10, 1977, to review the superior court’s dismissal on July 16, 1974, of plaintiffs’ petition for a tax abatement. The defendant moved to dismiss the present petition for failure to seasonably prosecute an appeal from the superior court’s decision. Transferred by *Bois,*J.

An examination of the entire record convinces us that the defendant’s motion should be granted. Superior Court Rule 69 (in force at the time of the hearing) now Superior Court Rule 74. *See also Nassif Realty Corp. v. National Fire Ins. Co.,*107 N.H. 267, 220 A.2d 748 (1966).

*Petition dismissed.*
#### § 151.03 Applicability.

This subpart applies to each ship that must comply with Annex I, II or V of MARPOL 73/78 unless otherwise indicated.

[CGD 88-002, 54 FR 18403, Apr. 28, 1989, as amended by CGD 88-002A, 55 FR 18582, May 2, 1990; CGD 97-015, 62 FR 18045, Apr. 14, 1997]
# 02-70706 Deng v. Ashcroft

Hawkins, W.Fletcher, CJJ; Breyer (N.Cal), DJ

2005

69.77206
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

          - [Project No. 2494]

      ( print page 35627)    
The following Commission staff are assigned to facilitate the preparation of an offer of settlement in these licensing proceedings that may be presented to the Commission.

### *Office of General Counsel*

Keith Brooks (202) 208-1229.

Merrill Hathaway (202) 208-0825.

### *Office of Energy Projects*

Bob Easton (202) 219-2782.

The staff listed above are separated from the advisory staff in these proceedings and will not participate as advisory staff in these proceedings.

 Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-13918 Filed 6-2-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### § 810.520 Confidentiality.

The Administrator shall, to the full extent of the law, protect the confidentiality of any person who provides information to the Department in confidence in the course of a verification or otherwise under this subpart.
§ 127.407 Testing. ( a ) The operator must pressure test under paragraph (b) of this section the transfer system, including piping, hoses, and loading arms, and verify the set pressure of the safety and relief valves— ( 1 ) After the system or the valves are altered;
( 2 ) After the system or the valves are repaired;
( 3 ) After any increase in the MAWP; or
( 4 ) For those components that are not continuously kept at cryogenic temperature, at least once each calendar year, with intervals between testing not exceeding 15 months.
( b ) The pressure for the transfer system test under paragraph (a) of this section must be at 1.1 times the MAWP and be held for a minimum of 30 minutes.
[CGD 78-038, 53 FR 3376, Feb. 7, 1988, as amended by USCG-2019-0444, 87 FR 5691, Feb. 2, 2022]
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Post-Effective Amendment
No. 1 to the Registration Statement of Gencor Industries, Inc. on Form S-8 for the registration of 3,556,000 ($.10 par value) shares of its common stock issuable pursuant to its 1992 Stock Option Plan, 1996 Stock Option Agreements and 1997
Stock Option Plan (SEC File Number 333-61769) and in the related prospectus of our report dated December 13, 2007 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Gencor Industries, Inc. and subsidiaries included in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2007.



|                                 
|---------------------------------
|/s/ MOORE STEPHENS LOVELACE, P.A.
|                                 
|MOORE STEPHENS LOVELACE, P.A.    
|                                 
|CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS     
|                                 
|Orlando, Florida                 
|                                 
|December 19, 2007                



76
INNOVATIONS IN NUTRITION PROGRAMS AND SERVICES GRANTEE

REPORTING CALENDAR

REPLICATION GRANTS

(Grant Period: August 1, 2022 – July 31, 2025)

Year Financial Reports1Semi-Annual2

Program Reports3

2023 ANNUAL SF-425 Programmatic Reports

August 31, 2023 Annual

(For the Period August 1, 2022 – July 31, 2023)

February 28, 2023 Semi---Annual

(For the Period August 1, 2022-January 31, 2023)

August 31, 2023 Semi-Annual

(For the Period February 1, 2023 – July 31, 2023)

2024 ANNUAL SF-425 Programmatic Reports

August 31, 2024 Annual

(For the Period August 1, 2023 – July 31, 2024)

February 29, 2024 Semi-Annual

(For the Period August 1, 2023-January 31, 2024)

August 31, 2024 Semi-Annual

(For the Period February 1, 2024 – July 31, 2024)

2025 ANNUAL SF-425 Programmatic Reports

August 31, 2025 Annual

(For the Period August 1, 2024 – July 31, 2025)

February 28, 2025 Semi-Annual

(For the Period August 1, 2024-January 31, 2025)

Final Financial Report SF-425 Final Programmatic Reports

October 30, 2025 FINAL FINANCIAL REPORT

(Cumulative for the period August 1, 2022-July 31, 2025)

In addition, a Property Disposition Statement is due.

October 30, 2025 FINAL PROGRAMMATIC REPORT in lieu of August 31 semiannual report

(Cumulative for the period August 1, 2022-July 31, 2025)
Other Instructions:

• Thoroughly review ACL’s webpage on “Managing a Grant”- https://acl.gov/grants/managing-grant.

• Meetings with ACL program officers will take place on the following schedule: (subject to change based on performance)

• Year 1: Monthly

• Year 2: Bi-monthly

• Year 3: Quarterly

• Semi-annual reports are due every 6 months during the grant period. The Final Programmatic Report is submitted in lieu of the last semi-annual report.

1

Financial reporting should be submitted through the Payment Management System (PMS). For financial reporting instructions, see: https://pms.psc.gov/, 

https://acl.gov/grants/managing-grant, and your official grant Notice of Award. 

2

Semi-annual Reports should be: 1) uploaded in GrantSolutions (https://www.grantsolutions.gov); and 2) emailed to your Technical Assistance Liaison and

ACL Project Officer. For the semi-annual reporting instructions and template, see: Current Guidelines for Preparing Performance Reports for Grants.

3

Final Reports should be: 1) uploaded in GrantSolutions (https://www.grantsolutions.gov); and 2) emailed to your Technical Assistance Liaison and ACL 

Project Officer. For the final reporting instructions and template, see: Current Guidelines for Preparing Performance Reports for Grants. Note that a Property 

Disposition Statement is required as part of the Final Report.