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

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4761

To designate the existing visitor’s center building located within the boundaries of the Valley Forge National Historical Park at Route 23 and

North Gulph Road in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Richard T.

Schulze Visitor’s Center’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 26, 2000

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To designate the existing visitor’s center building located

within the boundaries of the Valley Forge National Historical Park at Route 23 and North Gulph Road in

Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Richard T. Schulze

Visitor’s Center’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF EXISTING VISITOR CENTER

4 AT VALLEY FORGE NATIONAL HISTORICAL

5 PARK.

6 (a) DESIGNATION.—The existing visitor’s center

7 building located within the boundaries of the Valley Forge
2

•HR 4761 IH

1 National Historical Park at Route 23 and North Gulph

2 Road in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, shall be known and

3 designated as the ‘‘Richard T. Schulze Visitor’s Center’’.

4 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg5 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

6 States to the building referred to in subsection (a) shall

7 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Richard T. Schulze

8 Visitor’s Center’’.

Æ
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**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 of VoIP, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A
      for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert Staats, Chief
      Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:




(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.







Date:
              June 6,
              2006/s/ Robert
              StaatsRobert
                Staats
              Chief
                Accounting Officer
EXHIBIT 10.6








August 22, 2013
  
 Joseph McDevitt
 6 Parkside Avenue
 London SW19 SES
 
 Dear Joe:
 
 As we discussed, as a condition to the consummation of the Pinewood Transaction, each holder of unsecured convertible debt securities of the Company is required to enter into a form of this Agreement with the Company and elect, effective at the Closing, either to amend and restate the Debenture owned beneficially thereby, as well as the documents relating thereto, in accordance with the conditions below.
 
 Option #1: [   ] Debenture Amendment Election Option #2:  [ X ] Debenture Conversion Election
 
 (a)
Option #1:  Debenture Amendment Election.
 
 The Debenture shall be amended and restated to 1) Extend the maturity date from July 20, 2013 to July 20, 2016.  2)  Stated Interest Rate shall be reduced from 16% to 10% and 3) Effective conversion rate shall be reduced from $0.90 to $0.75 per share.
 
 (b)
Option #2:  Debenture Conversion Election.
 
 The principal amount of $500,000 and accrued and unpaid interest as of the closing date shall be shall be promptly converted to the Company’s common stock at a conversion price equal to $0.60 per share.  In addition, as an incentive for the conversion, the debenture holder will be issued 3 year warrants to purchase 833,334 common shares at an initial exercise price of $0.60 per share for twelve months from the date of this Agreement, at which time the exercise price shall be increased to $0.75 per share for the remainder of the term of the Warrant.
 .
 Please advise us of your election as soon as possible so that the applicable legal documents may be drafted.
 
 
 Debenture Holder Acceptance:
    /s/  Jospeh McDevitt
 Joseph McDevitt
  
 Sincerely,
 
 
 
 /s/   Robert DelVecchio
  CEO
 
 
 
 
 5600 Tennyson Parkway   Suite 390   Plano, TX 75024   Phone: 972 473 4033   Fax: 972 473 4034
Derry District Court

No. 7624

#### First Citizens’ National Bank v. Philip R. MacAllister and William C. Colgate

March 31, 1977

*278
      *Robert Singer,*of Manchester, by brief, for the plaintiff.

*Robert H. Fryer,*Londonderry, by brief, for defendant William C. Colgate.

Memorandum Opinion

This is an action by the holder of a promissory note seeking to recover from the maker and accommodation indorser the unpaid balance of the note. The plaintiff as well as the defendant indorser filed motions for summary judgment together with supporting affidavits. After a hearing *Troisi,*J., JtSA 502-A:5 (Supp. 1975), granted the plaintiff’s motion. The defendant appealed. All questions of law were reserved and transferred.

The defendant indorser’s only argument is that the plaintiff was guilty of laches and therefore should be barred from relief. However, the plaintiff seeks only legal, not equitable, relief. “Laches is a doctrine peculiarly applicable to suits in equity.” 2 J. Pomeroy, A Treatise on Equity Jurisprudence § 419a n.7 (5th ed. S. Symons 1941). Thus, it has no applicability here. “[W]here only strictly legal rights are in controversy no neglect in asserting the right, short of the time prescribed by the statute of limitations, will bar the appropriate legal remedy.” *Aronovitch v. Levy,*288 Minn. 237, 242, 56 N.W.2d 570, 574 (1953), *quoted in*E. Re, Equity and Equitable Remedies, Cases and Materials 1139 (1975); *see*Note, *Laches in Federal Substantive Law: Relation to Statutes of Limitations,*56 B.U.L. Rev. 970, 970 & 974-75 (1976).

*Defendant’s exception overruled.*
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 112 (Friday, June 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 36665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14527]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[I.D. 060500LE]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: Project Design for Research, Exploration, or Salvage of the 
R.M.S. Titanic and/or Its Artifacts.
    Form Number(s): None.
    OMB Approval Number: None.
    Type of Request: Regular submission.
    Burden Hours: 48.
    Number of Respondents: 2.
    Average Hours Per Response: 12 hours per project design or report.
    Needs and Uses: The R.M.S. Titanic Act of 1986 directs NOAA to 
enter into consultations with other nations to develop international 
guidelines for research on, exploration of, or salvage of the Titanic. 
Proposed guidelines are being published. They include requests for the 
voluntary submission of project designs and later reports. The 
information will allow NOAA to assess the potential and actual impacts 
of activities.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit institutions, not-
for-profit organizations.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, DOC Forms Clearance Officer, 
(202) 482-3272, Department of Commerce, Room 6066, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c1ada4afa6a4adaca481a5aea2efa6aeb7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="96faf3f8f1f3fafbf3d6f2f9f5b8f1f9e0">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: June 1, 2000.
Madeleine Clayton,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-14527 Filed 6-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-08-F


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.4

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 of AsiaInfo Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the
period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Wei Li, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (s)1350, as adopted pursuant to
(s)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/ Wei Li             
|Wei Li                 
|Chief Financial Officer
|January 30, 2009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

EUDALDO NAVARRO,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ No. 257, 2020

§

§

§

§ Court Below–Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID Nos. 1712003000 (N)

§ 1709006495 (N) 

§ 

Submitted: October 7, 2020

Decided: October 26, 2020

Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices.

ORDER

After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion 

to affirm, and the Superior Court record, we find it evident that the judgment below 

should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned in the Superior 

Court’s July 16, 2020 order. Contrary to the appellant’s assertion, “[t]here is no 

separate procedure, other than that which is provided under Superior Court Criminal 

Rule 35, to reduce or modify a sentence.”1 Accordingly, the Superior Court did not 

 

1

Jones v. State, 2003 WL 21210348, at *1 (Del. May 22, 2003). See also Fountain v. State, 139 

A.3d 837, 842 (Del. 2016) (“There is no way for an offender to seek to use the amendment [to 11 

Del. C. § 3901(d)] retrospectively except by way of a motion under Superior Court Criminal Rule 

35(b)....”).
2

abuse its discretion in treating the appellant’s “Motion to Run Level V Sentences 

Concurrently” as an untimely-filed motion for sentence modification under Superior 

Court Criminal Rule 35(b).

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to affirm 

is GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.

 Justice
Oklahoma Healthy Aging Initiative’s Quick Pivot to Virtual

As the world scrambled to react to the new reality of the pandemic, the Oklahoma Healthy 

Aging Initiative (OHAI) was ready to pivot. With an active Facebook page already up and 

running, they started to discuss how they might respond to COVID-19 in February 2020. As a 

result, they were ready to ramp up virtual programming. 

In fact, OHAI was one of the first ACL grantees to offer virtual classes, starting just a week after 

stopping all in-person programming on March 12, 2020. Soon they were livestreaming Tai Chi 

and SAIL (Staying Active and Independent for Life) classes five times a day, Monday through 

Thursday, attracting 20-30 viewers each time. Recorded sessions sometimes have views in the 

hundreds. 

Virtual services have benefitted a state in which 75 out of 77 counties are considered rural with 

a great need for programming like that offered by OHAI. Oklahoma ranks 47th of the 50 states 

in overall health and physical activity. It also ranks 36th for falls.

Headquartered at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, OHAI is a statewide 

initiative with five regional offices. The organization offers a variety of programs – SAIL, Tai Chi 

for Better Balance (TCBB), older driver safety, medication management, caregiver skills, chronic 

disease management, and others. OHAI’s goal for the Administration for Community Living 

grant was to serve 1,500 older adults and people with disabilities with TCBB and SAIL. Working 

with local public health systems, libraries, churches, senior centers, area agencies on aging, 

long-term care facilities, and others, they offered classes at 77 different sites in 2019, reaching 

over 1,100 participants. 

They didn’t want to lose this progress—and these meaningful contacts with participants—to 

distance. And thanks to their existing social media presence and quick response, they didn’t.

Starting in mid-March 2020, SAIL and TCBB moved to Facebook Live with no registration 

required. Since then, more than 1,200 people have taken part in falls prevention classes on 

Facebook Live. OHAI also offers several other classes via Zoom to registered participants.

OHAI considers not only how many virtual classes it offers, but the quality of them. Staff trained 

all OHAI educators in best practices for using Facebook Live. They also watch educators on the 

new platform to ensure quality programming, and they created a system for tracking 

participation, comments, shares, likes, and views.

OHAI continues to work on its process with post-program surveys. Using social media and a 

web-based survey tool, staff can survey their most frequent participants. Based on the positive 

response to virtual programming, OHAI expects to continue even after in-person classes 

resume—extending their reach to more Oklahomans.
Case 0:00-cr-06024-PAS Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2000 Page 1 of 1
Co St 1 (2-99)

Cold

StorageAgriculturalStatisticsWashington, D
Cold Storage Agricultural Statistics Board

February 1999 2 NASS, USDA

Table of Contents

 Page

Stocks in Cold Storage: By Commodity, United States, January 1999 .......................... 3

Stocks in Cold Storage: By Commodity, Region, and United States, December 31, 1998 ........... 6

Stocks in Cold Storage: By Commodity, Region, and United States, 

 January 31, 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Public General Warehouses: Cold Storage Space Occupied by Region and

 United States, January 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Apples in Cold Storage: By State and United States, January 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Survey and Estimating Procedures, Revision Policy and Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Cold Storage Agricultural Statistics Board
Cold Storage Agricultural Statistics Board
Cold Storage Agricultural Statistics Board

February 1999 5 NASS, USDA

Cold Storage Agricultural Statistics Board

February 1999 7 NASS, USDA
Cold Storage Agricultural Statistics Board

February 1999 8 NASS, USDA

Stocks in Cold Storage: By Commodity, Region,

and United States, December 31, 1998 (continued)
Cold Storage Agricultural Statistics Board

February 1999 9 NASS, USDA
Cold Storage Agricultural Statistics Board

Cold Storage Agricultural Statistics Board

February 1999 12 NASS, USDA



Cold Storage Agricultural Statistics Board

February 1999 16 NASS, USDA

Survey Procedures:
The next "Cold Storage" report will be released at 3 p.m. ET on March 19, 1999.
Exhibit 32(b)



                                  CERTIFICATION

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


In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Alabama
Power Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, we, the undersigned,
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of our individual
knowledge and belief, that:

(1)  such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Alabama Power Company for the quarter
     ended September 30, 2005, which this statement accompanies, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Alabama
     Power Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, fairly presents, in
     all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     Alabama Power Company.



                              /s/Charles D. McCrary
                               Charles D. McCrary
                      President and Chief Executive Officer



                                /s/Art P. Beattie
                                 Art P. Beattie
                            Executive Vice President,
                      Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

Date:  November 3, 2005
#### § 161.25 Vessel Traffic Service New York Area.

The area consists of the navigable waters of the Lower New York Harbor bounded on the east by a line drawn from Norton Point to Breezy Point; on the south by a line connecting the entrance buoys at the Ambrose Channel, Swash Channel, and Sandy Hook Channel to Sandy Hook Point; and on the southeast including the waters of Sandy Hook Bay south to a line drawn at latitude 40°25′ N.; then west into waters of the Raritan Bay to the Raritan River Rail Road Bridge; and then north including the waters of the Arthur Kill and Newark Bay to the Lehigh Valley Draw Bridge at latitude 40°41.9′ N.; and then east including the waters of the Kill Van Kull and Upper New York Bay north to a line drawn east-west from the Holland Tunnel Ventilator Shaft at latitude 40°43.7′ N., longitude 74°01.6′ W. in the Hudson River; and then continuing east including the waters of the East River to the Throgs Neck Bridge, excluding the Harlem River.

Note:

Although mandatory participation in VTSNY is limited to the area within the navigable waters of the United States, VTSNY will provide services beyond those waters. Prospective users are encouraged to report beyond the area of required participation in order to facilitate advance vessel traffic management in the VTS area and to receive VTSNY advisories and/or assistance.

[CGD 92-052, [61 FR 45327](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-45327), Aug. 29, 1996]
#### Kippen and Company v. Carr’s Executor.

Wednesday, Jan. 5th, 1814.

I. Executors Liability to Creditors tor Assets Paid Legatees.* — An executor cannot defend himself against the suit of a creditor, by shewing that, before he had notice of the plaintiff’s demand, he paid oyer the assets to the legatees of the testator.

See Burnley v. Lambert, 1 Wash, 313.

In the year 1806, an action of debt was brought by George Kippen & Company in the county court of Albemarle against Garland Carr, surviving executor of Samuel Carr, deceased, on a bond executed by the testator. The defendant pleaded payment; after which, the cause being removed by certiorari to the superior court of law, he filed an additional plea of plene administravit. A jury was impanelled to try the issues joined, and found the first issue in favour of the plaintiffs, but, by consent of parties, was discharged from rendering a verdict on the other ; whereupon a case was agreed, “that the defendant’s testator departed this life in the year 1777 ; that the defendant, in the year 1788 or 1789, having had no notice of the existence of this debt, proceeded to pay over to the legatees the assets then remaining in his hands, which amounted to more than the debt.”

On this case, judgment was given against the plaintiffs, who thereupon obtained a writ of supersedeas from a judge of this court.

*Wickham for the plaintiffs.

Wirt for the defendant.

*

See monographic *note*on "Executors and Administrators” appended to Rosser v. Depriest, 5 Gratt. 6.

The principal case is cited in McGlaughlin v. McGlaughlin, 43 W. Va. 238, 37 S. E. Rep. 378, for the proposition laid down in the headnote.

The following opinion of this court was delivered by

JUDGE ROANE.

“The court is of opinion that the judgment *54of the Superior Court, rendered upon the case agreed between the parties in this cause, is erroneous in this, that the defence therein set up in bar of the appellant’s demand is not sufficient in law to bar or preclude the same ; — the rule being that, as a testator may be bountiful as well as just in the disposition of his estate, so his legal representatives are the proper judges of his ability in that particular ; and that their ability to pay his debts as well as legacies is acknowledged by their delivering up legacies to those entitled thereto; — and, also, because the law, foreseeing that there might be dormant debts not known to the executor or administrator at the time of his payment of the legacies, has provided a mean by which he is indemnified against the same. On this ground, the judgment is reversed with costs ; and judgment is to be entered for the appellant according to the verdict of the jury.”
In The Matter Of: 

MOUNTAIN 

SERVED: OCTOBER 7, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

) 

) Docket No. FAA-2014-0111 

) 

AIR CARGO, INC. ) 

) Case No. 2013EA680043 

Respondent ) 

ORDER GRANTING FAA MOTION FOR 

SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A REPLY 

On September 30,2014, an Order Granting FAA Motion for Extension of Time to File a 

Reply was filed. This Order extended FAA's deadline to file a Reply to Respondent's 

Supplemental Memorandum to October 7, 2014. 

On October 6, 2014, the FAA filed the Agency's Request for Another One-Week 

Extension to File Reply to Respondent's Supplemental Memorandum in Response to Motion for 

Decision ("Motion"). In the Motion, the FAA notes that the parties have reached a settlement 

agreement in principle, but need time to agree on the exact details of the language. The FAA 

asserts that the Respondent does not object to the Motion. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.218, the FAA's Motion is granted. 

2. The deadline for the FAA to file a Reply to Respondent's Supplemental Memorandum is 

extended from October 7, 2014 to October 14,2014. 

Attachment: Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Mr. Zachery M. Berman 

Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3258 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

Mr. Mark A. Dombroff 

Respondent's Counsel 

McKenna Long & Alderidge 

1676 International Drive PH 

McLean, VA 22102 

TEL: 703-336-8700 

FAX: 703-336-8750 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

ONE COPY 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

DocketNo. FAA-2014-0111 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.