alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 329.12 Geographic and jurisdictional limits of oceanic and tidal waters. ( a ) *Ocean and coastal waters.* The navigable waters of the United States over which Corps of Engineers regulatory jurisdiction extends include all ocean and coastal waters within a zone three geographic (nautical) miles seaward from the baseline (The Territorial Seas). Wider zones are recognized for special regulatory powers exercised over the outer continental shelf. (See 33 CFR 322.3(b)). ( 1 ) *Baseline defined.* Generally, where the shore directly contacts the open sea, the line on the shore reached by the ordinary low tides comprises the baseline from which the distance of three geographic miles is measured. The baseline has significance for both domestic and international law and is subject to precise definitions. Special problems arise when offshore rocks, islands, or other bodies exist, and the baseline may have to be drawn seaward of such bodies.
( 2 ) *Shoreward limit of jurisdiction.* Regulatory jurisdiction in coastal areas extends to the line on the shore reached by the plane of the mean (average) high water. Where precise determination of the actual location of the line becomes necessary, it must be established by survey with reference to the available tidal datum, preferably averaged over a period of 18.6 years. Less precise methods, such as observation of the “apparent shoreline” which is determined by reference to physical markings, lines of vegetation, or changes in type of vegetation, may be used only where an estimate is needed of the line reached by the mean high water.
( b ) *Bays and estuaries.* Regulatory jurisdiction extends to the entire surface and bed of all waterbodies subject to tidal action. Jurisdiction thus extends to the edge (as determined by paragraph (a)(2) of this section) of all such waterbodies, even though portions of the waterbody may be extremely shallow, or obstructed by shoals, vegetation, or other barriers. Marshlands and similar areas are thus considered “navigable in law,” but only so far as the area is subject to inundation by the mean high waters. The relevant test is therefore the presence of the mean high tidal waters, and not the general test described above, which generally applies to inland rivers and lakes.
#### Kirk v. Sampson. Willis v. Same.

(Decided October 3, 1916.)

Appeals from Knox Circuit Court.

Appeal and Error — Affirmance by Equally Divided Court. — When the judges of the Court of Appeals are equally divided in opinion as to the affirmance or reversal of the judgment of the circuit court, it will be affirmed.

J. B. ADAMSON and ED. C. O’REAR for appellant, Andrew J. Kirfc.

ROBT. H. WINN and W. B. WHITE for appellant, S. S. Willis.

SCOTT & HAMILTON, H. C. GILLIS, S. B. DISHMAN, J. M. ROBSION and HAZELRIGG *&*HAZELRIGG for appellee.

*316*Per*Curiam:

The judgment of the Knox circuit court in this case is affirmed by an equally divided court; the whole court sitting, except Judge Hurt, who is absent on account of illness in his family, and will not return in time to participate in the decision of this case before October 7th, the latest day on which the nomination of a candidate for judge of the Court of Appeals can be certified to the Secretary of State.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1802 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 24 ) IV-E-1 9 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/200811:57:59 AM

Sheet 24 of 117P. 2

Memorandu m Subject : Phon e cal l Recor d NS R Refor

mFina l Rulemaking FROM : Denni s Crumpler , NS R Refor mTea mLeader , Integrate d Implementatio n Group , ITPI D TO : Docke

t A-90-3 7 Dat e o f Telephon e Call : March 16,199 8 Approximat

e time : 9:3 0 a . m . Participants : Patrick

Raher , Hoga

n & Hartson ; Denni s Crumpler , Integrate d Implementatio n Group , ITPID , OAQPS Subjec t o f Conversation : Mr . Rahe r calle d t o discus s th e factor s tha t would b e involve d i

n decidin g i f

anothe r stakeholde r meeting t o discus s issue s surrounding th e NS R Refor mproposa l woul d b e warranted . Mr . Rahe

r indicate d he i s tryin g t

o ge t th e Federa

l Lan d Manager s (FLM ) t o mee

t wit h som e o f the industr

y stakeholder s t o discus s th e FL M proposa l tha t wa s presente d t o th e Permit s /Ne

w Sourc e Review/Toxic s Integratio n Subcommittee o f th e Clea n Air Ac t Advisor y Committe e o n Februar y 17 , 1998 . He als o mentioned anothe r a d ho c grou p o f industr y stakeholder s would likel y t o ge t togethe r t o discus s key applicabilit

y issues . A s co-chair

o f th e NS R Refor mSubcommitte e o f

th e Clea n Ai r Ac t Advisor y Committee , Mr . Rahe

r fel t tha t a large r meetin g o f

th e entir e Subcommittee , migh

t not b e a s effective a s smalle

r meeting s o f stakeholders , give

n th e pressure on th e rulemaking schedul e an d th e effor t tha t EP A ha s t o diver

t fromrul e developmen

t into alarg e meeting .
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5376 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5376

                   For the relief of Sandra J. Pilot.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 3, 2000

 Mr. Barr of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Sandra J. Pilot.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR SANDRA J. PILOT.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Sandra J. Pilot shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Sandra J. Pilot enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), she 
shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Sandra J. Pilot, the Secretary 
of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the 
current or next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant 
visas that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's 
birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, 
if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
available to natives of the country of the alien's birth under section 
202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Sandra J. 
Pilot shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right, 
privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
**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 theQuarterly Report of Sento Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for thethree months ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Anthony J. Sansone, SeniorVice President, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

(1)the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  Anthony J. Sansone                                                 |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                    |
| Anthony  J. Sansone                                                     |
| Senior  Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary |
| February  13, 2006                                                      |

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required bythe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

----
ALLEN ORGAN COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Exhibit 31.1

                       Section 302 Certification

I, Steven Markowitz, certify that:
1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Allen Organ
     Company;
2.   Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;
3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
     financial information included in this 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 report;
4.   The registrant's other certifying officers 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, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
      supervision, 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 quarterly report is being prepared;
   b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
      controls and procedures and presented in this report our
      conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
      and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
      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 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 officers 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
     registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
     function):
   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.

/s/STEVEN MARKOWITZ
Steven Markowitz
Chief Executive Officer
November 6, 2003
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-CR-20524-HUCK/Becerra

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

JORDAN ALPHONSO THOMAS,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING R&R AND ADJUDICATING DEFENDANT GUILTY

THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra’s 

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on Change of Plea [ECF No. 19], which was entered on 

November 29, 2022. In the R&R, Judge Becerra found that the Defendant Jordan Alphonso 

Thomas freely and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty as to Count I of the Indictment, which 

charges Defendant with importation of a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a).

Judge Becerra recommends that this Court accept Defendant’s guilty plea, that Defendant 

be adjudicated guilty of Count I, and that a sentencing hearing be conducted for final disposition 

of this matter. The Court has reviewed Judge Becerra’s R&R, no objections have been filed, and 

the Court has been advised that no objections will be filed. Therefore, based on a de novo review 

of the evidence presented, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that (1) Judge Becerra’s R&R [ECF No. 19] is 

ADOPTED and AFFIRMED in its entirety; (2) the Court accepts Defendant’s plea of guilty, 

and Defendant is hereby adjudged GUILTY as to Count I of the Indictment; and (3) a sentencing 

hearing before the Honorable Paul C. Huck is set for Tuesday, February 14, 2023, at 10:00 AM. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida on November 30, 2022.

Case 1:22-cr-20524-PCH Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 1 of 2
2 

PAUL C. HUCK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies provided to: 

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra

U.S. Probation 

Counsel of record 

Case 1:22-cr-20524-PCH Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2004**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Alliance Gaming Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert L. Saxton,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that, to my knowledge:

 

1. The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Company.

Dated:  November 8, 2004
| /s/ Robert L. Saxton                                    |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Robert L. Saxton                                        |   |
| Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial |   |
| Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting  Officer)   |   |

 

----
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Economic Status of Registered Professional Nurses, 1946-47

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Economic Status of Registered Professional Nurses, 1946-47 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 931*,										1948,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4367,			accessed on September 7, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
§ 162.85 Yazoo Diversion Canal, Vicksburg, Miss., from its mouth at Kleinston Landing to Fisher Street; navigation. ( a ) *Speed.* Excessive speeding is prohibited. A vessel shall reduce its speed sufficiently to prevent any damage when approaching another vessel in motion or tied up, a wharf or other structure, works under construction, plant engaged in river and harbor improvement, levees, floodwalls withstanding floodwaters, buildings submerged or partially submerged by high waters, or any other structure or improvement likely to be damaged by collision, suction, or wave action.
Note:
The Corps of Engineers also has regulations dealing with this section in 33 CFR Part 207.
§ 927.1 Noncontractual carriage of international mail by vessel. ( a ) *Report of infraction.* Where evidence is found or reported that a carrier of mail by vessel which has transported mail pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 4, USPS Purchasing Manual, has unreasonably or unnecessarily delayed the mails, or committed other delinquencies in the transportation of mail, has failed to carry the mail in a safe and secure manner, or has caused loss or damage to the mail, the facts will be reported to International Network Operations, Headquarters.
( b ) *Review, investigation, recommendation.* International Network Operations will investigate the matter, record findings of fact, make a recommendation concerning the need for imposition of fine or penalty with reasons for the recommendation, and will advise the carrier of the recommendation.
( c ) *Penalty action.* International Network Operations, upon review of the record, may impose a fine or penalty against a carrier for any irregularity properly documented, whether or not penalty action has been recommended. A tentative decision of International Network Operations to take penalty action will be set forth in detail the facts and reasons upon which the determination is based. International Network Operations will send the tentative decision, including notice of the irregularities found and the amount of fine or penalty proposed, to the carrier. The carrier may present a written defense to the proposed action within 21 days after receipt of the tentative decision. International Network Operations will advise the carrier of the final decision.
( d ) *Appeal.* If the final decision includes a penalty International Network Operations will advise the carrier that it may, within 30 days, appeal the action in writing to the Vice President, Network Operations Management, U.S. Postal Service Headquarters and that its written appeal should include all facts and arguments upon which the carrier relies in support of the appeal. If an appeal is not received, International Network Operations will close the record. When an appeal is taken, the Vice President, Network Operations Management will review the complete record the decide the appeal. He will advise the carrier of the decision in writing and will take actions consistent with that decision. The Vice President, Network Operations Management, may sustain, rescind, or compromise a fine or penalty. The decision of the Vice President, Network Operations Management on appeal shall be the final decision of the Postal Service. The Postal Service may, in its discretion, deduct from payment otherwise due the carrier an amount necessary to satisfy the penalty action taken under this section.
( e ) *Details of administration.* For further administrative details, see USPS Purchasing Manual, chapter 4.
#### *Cookes v. The Patriotic Bank of Washington.

October, 1829.

(Absent Green, J.†)

Forthcoming; Bonds — Notice—Variance in Name of Party —Effect, ‡ — In a notice of a motion to be made on a forthcoming bond the bond is described, by mistake as executed by John when it was in fact executed by .George M. Cooke: held, variance material, and notice insufficient.

A fieri facias, sued out of the, circuit court of Stafford, by the appellees against George M. Cooke, having been levied on his property, he together with John Cooke, his surety, gave bond for the forthcoming of the property at the day of sale, in the usual form; which was forfeited. A notice was given to the true obligors, of a motion to be made for award of execution on the bond: but it was addressed to John M. Cooke (instead of George M. Cooke) and John Cooke; and it described the bond as the bond of John M. Cooke (instead of George M.), and John Cooke. It was objected at the hearing of the motion, that the notice did not truly describe the bond on which the motion was made, but on the contrary described a bond which did not exist; but, notwithstanding this variance, the circuit court awarded execution on the bond. The defendants applied to this court for a supersedeas, which was allowed.

Green for the plaintiffs in error, and Briggs for the defendants.

*

See Peter v. Butler, ante, p. 285.

†

He was absent during the whole of this term, being a member of the convention, (which sat from the first Monday in October 1829, till the 15th January 1830) and constantly attending his duty there.

‡

Forthcoming Bonds — Notice—Sufficiency of. — If the notice descends to particulars as to dates, sums and names, the documents referred to, when produced, must correspond with the notice or no judgment can be given. Board, etc., v. Parsons, 22 W. Va. 311, citing 1 Rob. Pr. (1st Ed.) 590; Drew v. Anderson, 1 Call 51; *Cookes v. Patriotic Bank,*1 *Leigh 433.*See also, citing the principal case for this proposition, Shepherd v. Brown, 30 W. Va. 20, 3 S. E. Rep. 190; *foot-note*to Monteith v. Com., 15 Gratt. 172. See monographic *note*on Statutory Bonds” appended to Goolsby v. strother, 21 Gratt. 107.

The only point was the misnomer in the notice, of the principal obligor — John M. instead of George M. Cooke; the effect of which was, that the notice described a different forthcoming bond from that on which the motion was in fact made.

This court held the variance material and fatal, and reversed the judgment of the circiut court.