alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1


                    Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of Albertson's,  Inc. (the
"Company")  for the  quarterly  period ended October 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  Lawrence
R. Johnston, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Felicia D. Thornton,
as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that, to the best of his/her knowledge:

       (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  as of the dates  and for the  periods
              expressed in the report.



Date: December 11, 2002                 /S/ Lawrence R. Johnston
                                        --------------------------------
                                        Lawrence R. Johnston
                                        Chairman of the Board and
                                         Chief Executive Officer





Date: December 11, 2002                 /S/ Felicia D. Thornton
                                        ---------------------------------
                                        Felicia D. Thornton
                                        Executive Vice President
                                         and Chief Financial Officer




This   certification   accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### § 102-36.225 Must we report excess related personal property?

Yes, you must report excess related personal property to the Office of Real Property, GSA, in accordance with part 102-75 of this chapter.

[65 FR 31218, May 16, 2000, as amended at 71 FR 53572, Sept. 12, 2006]
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory Office of Transportation and Air Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy , and Consumer Programs National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

EPA - 420 - D - 15 - 002 June 201 5 

## Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis **Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium**  **- and Heavy**  **- Duty**  **Engines and Vehicles -**  **Phase 2**

**Proposed Rule**

Office of Transportation and Air Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

and National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation
UM TED STATES DISTRICT CO URT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLOD A

CaseNo.22.81780-CV-M 1DDLEBR00KS

DONM D J.'FRUW ,

Plaintiff,

LETITIA JAX S,indiddually,

Defendant.

O RDER CLO SING CASE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Courton Plaintic s Notice ofVoluntary Dismissal

WithoutPrejudice,sledJanuary20,2023.(DE21).PursuanttoRule41(a)oftheFederalRules

ofCivilProcedure,aplnintiffmay voluntnrily dismissan action by filing anotice ofdism issal

beforetheopposingpartyserveseitheranansweroramotionforslmmaryjud> ent.SeeFed.

R.Civ.P.41(a)(1)(A)(i).Defendanthœsservednei er.Accordingly,itis

ORDERED AND ADJUDG ED that this case is DISM SSED W ITHO UT

PREJIJDICE. n e Clerk of Courtshall CLO SE THIS CASE. Al1pending m otions are

DEM ED AS M O OT.

SIGNEDinChambers,atWestPalmBeach,Flori 's# dayofJanuary,2023.

ALD M .M IDDLEBROOKS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: CounselofRecord

Case 9:22-cv-81780-DMM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2023 Page 1 of 1
§ 102-192.20 How are “must” and “should” used in this part? In this part— ( a ) “Must” identifies steps that Federal agencies are required to take; and
( b ) “Should” identifies steps that the GSA recommends. In their internal policy statements, agencies may require steps that GSA recommends.
§ 101-30.401-2 Automated catalog data output. As a result of participation in the Federal catalog system, activities may receive data directly from DLSC tailored to their individual needs in support of their own supply management data system. The two basic categories of file maintenance are: ( a ) *Simplified file maintenance (SFM).* Subscribers to this category of file maintenance are provided replacement files (magnetic tape) semiannually containing selected technical and supply management data for those items on which they are a registered user. The subscriber will also receive a monthly maintenance update and cumulative monthly basic records from DLSC which may be used to maintain the semiannual basic file. Recipients of this form of file maintenance have latitude in selecting those items which meet the needs of their supply system from the categories of data available from the Federal Catalog System.
( b ) *Regular file maintenance (RFM).* This form of the file maintenance provides activities with data on a daily basis as transactions affect items upon which they are a registered user. It is used primarily by those activities which consider it essential to maintain file compatibility with the DLSC file at all times.
[42 FR 36255, July 14, 1977]
#### § 102-3.145 What policies apply to subcommittee meetings?

If a subcommittee provides advice or recommendations directly to a Federal officer or agency, or if its advice or recommendations will be adopted by the parent advisory committee without further deliberations by the parent advisory committee, then the subcommittee's meetings must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of this subpart.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 118 (Monday, June 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 37965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15351]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CPOO-51-000 and CPOO-51-001


East Tennessee Natural Gas Company; Notice of Site Visit

June 13, 2000.
    On June 19, 20, and 21, 2000, the staff of the Office of Energy 
Projects will be conducting an environmental site visit of East 
Tennessee Natural Gas Company's Rocky Top Expansion Project in Wythe, 
Smyth, and Washington Counties, Virginia and Greene, Roane, McMinn, 
Morgan, Overton, Fentress, and Hamilton Counties, Tennessee. All 
parties may attend. Those planning to attend must provide their own 
transportation.
    For further information about where the site inspection will begin, 
please contact Paul McKee at (202) 208-1088.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-15351 Filed 6-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Marion Southall BUTLER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 7682.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 7, 1958.

Decided Oct. 10, 1958.

A. Scott Anderson, Richmond, Va. (Court appointed counsel), for appellant.

R. R. Ryder, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty. (L. S. Parsons, Jr., U. S. Atty., Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellee.

Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judge, and HARRY E. WATKINS, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

In the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the defendant, with nine co-defendants, was tried and convicted upon charges of conspiracy to violate the Internal Revenue laws relating to liquor. The defendant had independently employed counsel of his own selection, an experienced trial attorney who, as a result of illness, had become addicted to dope. The defendant knew that his attorney had recently been under treatment for narcotics addiction, and was then under indictment charged with altering prescriptions.

In this proceeding under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, the defendant claims a denial of *575his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel, but the District Court found that his defense was ably and effectively presented by his attorney and more vigorously than other attorneys presented the defense of the co-defendants. Since the defendant was well aware of the entire situation at the time he chose to go to trial with his attorney, the District Court denied the motion.

For the reasons more fully stated by Judge Hoffman in his opinion, 167 F. Supp. 102, we think denial of the motion was proper.

Judge Hoffman, however, had appointed an outstanding attorney of Richmond to represent the defendant in the hearing of the motion. With great industry and ability he has urged the cause of the defendant, and he earnestly insists that, despite the defendant’s knowledge of the facts, the trial judge should have acted to prevent the appearance for the defendant of an attorney with a recent history of treatment for addiction and who was then under indictment.

There is much difficulty with this position, however. The attorney was an experienced member of the bar of the court, against whom no disbarment proceedings had been commenced, in apparent command of his faculties and effectively discharging his duties. The defendant’s constitutional right to counsel, when independently employed by him, is to counsel of his choice. Had the trial judge indicated any disinclination to permit the appearance of the defendant’s attorney, the defendant might naturally have felt compelled to accept substitute counsel. Deprived of the right to counsel of his choice, grave doubt would have been cast upon the validity of the proceedings.

We think the trial judge, who was fully informed of the situation, chose the correct course when he carefully watched the performance of the defendant’s attorney, but permitted him to proceed when he discharged his duties with skill and vigor.

Affirined.
#### JOSEPH CLIFFORD, ADMINISTRATOR AD PROS. OF THE ESTATE OF JANE VALERIE CLIFFORD, DECEASED, PLAINTIFFS, v. SADIE McCLOSKEY AND HARRY McCLOSKEY, DEFENDANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division

Decided April 3, 1951.

*97
      *Mr. James M. Davis, Jr.,*attorney for plaintiffs.

*Mr. TIarold T. Parker*for defendants *(Messrs. Parker, McOay *& Griscuolo,*attorneys).

Dokxhjs, J. S. 0.

This matter is before this court on defendants’ motion for a new trial as to damages only on the ground that the verdict rendered wa,s excessive.

The case involved the death of a six-year-old girl who was killed when run over by defendants’ bus. At the conclusion of the testimony, the case was submitted to the jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $5,000. The testimony showed that the girl left surviving her a mother, father, sister and a brother who was born subsequent to the girl’s death.

Defendants, in their brief, cite a number of eases in which verdicts were rendered in the ease of a minor, not a prodigy. The accepted damages in these cases appear to be somewhat lower than the verdict in the instant case, although not markedly lower. A thorough examination of these cases discloses that these cases wore decided in the years when the purchasing power of the dollar was greater than it is today.

In more recent cases such as *McStay v. Przychocki,*9 *N. J. Super.*365 *(Law Div.*1950), affirmed 10 *N. J. Super.*455 *(App. Div.*1950), our courts have made allowance for the fluctuation in the value of the dollar, with the changing economic trends in recent years. It may well be that the jury considered the deflated value of the dollar. Judicial notice thereof may be properly taken and the jury, in the exercise *98of its judgment, could have properly considered it in assessing the damages against defendant. In these days of the high cost of living and consequent decrease in the purchasing power of the dollar, one cannot well overlook or ignore the effect of such economic conditions when called upon to determine, as the jury did here, the amount of damages. *Nusser v. United Parcel Service of New York,*3 *N. J. Super.*64 *(App. Div.*1949).

In estimating the amount of injury to the next of kin, the jury should, and doubtless did, consider the various probabilities, which in the course of years, might determine the pecuniary advantages which would accrue to the next of kin, if this young girl had not been killed: the normal life expectancy of the decedent, her physical, mental and moral characteristics, her likely earnings and many more prospective advantages.

Under the circumstances of the present case, although the verdict may be high, it is not so excessive as to justify the implication that it was the result of mistake, partiality, passion or prejudice, and, therefore, I do not feel that I can substitute my judgment for that of the jury.

The motion is denied.
#### § 241.2 Applicability.

This rule applies to all U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Headquarters (HQUSACE), elements and Major Subordinate Commands and District Commands of the Corps of Engineers having Civil Works Responsibilities.

[60 FR 5133, Jan. 26, 1995]
December 10, 2010
**Memorandum Memorializing Ex Parte Communication**

TO: expartecommunications@hq.doe.gov (sent via email)
On December 10, 2010, staff of the Air-Conditioning , Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) met with staff of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) t o discuss the amount of time AHRI, as a third party reporting agency for manufacturers of commerc ial products, will need for compliance with the reporting requirements for commercial HVAC equipmen t and water heaters to be set forth in the pending final rule in Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-CE-00 14/RIN 1904-AC23.
Meeting attendees were the following:

Representing DOE:

Scott Blake Harris Stephanie Weiner Laura Barhydt Ashley Armstrong

Representing AHRI:

David Calabrese Joseph Mattingly Karim Amrane Bill Tritsis

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph M. Mattingly AHRI General Counsel
#### § 102-37.340 When may a SASP terminate a cooperative agreement?

You may terminate a cooperative agreement with GSA 60-calendar days after providing GSA with written notice. For other cooperative agreements with other authorized parties, you or the other party may terminate the agreement as mutually agreed. You must promptly notify GSA when such other agreements are terminated.
§ 966.12 Waiver of rights. ( a ) The Hearing Official may determine that the former employee has waived the right to a hearing, and that administrative offset may be initiated if the former employee files a petition for hearing after the period prescribed in these Rules and fails to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Hearing Official good cause for the delay; or has filed a withdrawal of the former employee's previous petition for a hearing.
( b ) The Hearing Official may determine that the Postal Service has waived the alleged debt at issue, and that the administrative offset may not be initiated if the Postal Service fails to file the answer within the period prescribed by the Rules and fails to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Hearing Official good cause for the delay; or has filed a withdrawal of the debt determination at issue.
( c ) In addition, whenever a record discloses the failure of either party to file documents required by these rules, respond to notices or correspondence from the Hearing Official, comply with orders of the Hearing Official, participate in conferences, fail to treat the proceedings with the proper decorum, or otherwise indicate an intention not to continue the prosecution or defense of a petition, the Hearing Official may issue an order requiring the offending party to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed or granted, as appropriate. If the offending party shall fail to show cause, the Hearing Official may take such action as he or she deems reasonable and proper under the circumstances, including dismissal or granting of the petition as appropriate.
[77 FR 65106, Oct. 25, 2012]
Updated April 2021 1

AmeriCorps Leaders in the VISTA Program

AmeriCorps leaders in the VISTA program are AmeriCorps alumni or returned Peace Corps

volunteers who demonstrated exemplary skills and leadership in service. About 250 leaders serve

each year throughout the country.

Purpose

AmeriCorps leaders support the success of AmeriCorps VISTA projects by supporting the successful 

service of members on the project. Leaders provide differentfunctionsdependingontheneeds

oftheproject and individual members.

What Leaders Do

Specific responsibilities vary; most leaders are involved in supporting or expanding a new or 

existing project. Leaders help recruit, screen, and train members. They coordinate members 

and develop reporting and project management systems. Leaders promote information 

sharing, create a member support network, develop in-service training workshops, conduct 

site visits, and create model programs. Some apply for grants and conduct broad-based 

public awareness campaigns. In general, they set an example of leadership for members;

ensure positive relations; facilitate idea sharing; and mediate issues with the community, the 

project, supervisors, and members.

Leaders do not supervise members (or other AmeriCorps-supported participants or 

volunteers). They are prohibited from preparing AmeriCorps project applications or applying 

for AmeriCorps grants. They are also prohibited from preparing and submitting progress 

reports, although they often assist in gathering information and data from members and site 

supervisors.

Examples of Supervisor Responsibilities and Appropriate Leader Roles

Task Supervisor Responsibilities Leader Support

Recruiting members ▪ Interview top applicants

▪ Nominate applicants for approval 

by AmeriCorps

▪ Notify applicants of their 

selection

▪ Accept applicants in eGrants 

▪ Promote position 

▪ Assist in screening applications

▪ Set up interviews for top 

applicants 

▪ Participate in interviews and 

provide input to supervisor
Updated April 2021 2

Member training ▪ Develop training plan and submit 

for approval by AmeriCorps

▪ Finalize agenda

▪ Coordinate with leader 

regarding materials, speakers, 

logistics, etc.

▪ Implement training

▪ Draft agenda based on plan

▪ Collate orientation materials

▪ Help identify guest speakers 

and facilitators

▪ Participate in implementing 

training 

Reporting to 

AmeriCorps

▪ Communicate data collection 

needs to members and leader

▪ Obtain data from leader

▪ Interpret data and write report

▪ Submit report to AmeriCorps

▪ Coordinate collection of data 

from members

▪ Clarify points in reports with 

members, if needed

▪ Collate data and assist in 

interpretation

Requesting a Leader

AmeriCorps project sponsors with six or more members in the VISTA program who are 

interested in having a leader should contact their AmeriCorps Regional Office to discuss the 

opportunity. Coordination and planning should begin as the project is being developed or 

renewed for another year. Sponsors must provide a specific VISTA Leader Assignment 

Description with their request.
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**The Partners**Duke Realty Limited Partnership:

 

We consent toincorporation by reference in the registration statement No.  333-108557-01 on Form S-3 of Duke RealtyLimited Partnership of our report dated January 28, 2004, relating to theconsolidated balance sheets of Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Subsidiariesas of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements ofoperations, partners’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in thethree-year period ended December 31, 2003, and the related financial statementschedule III, which report appears in the December 31, 2003 annual report onForm 10-K of Duke Realty Limited Partnership.

 

 

**KPMGLLP**

Indianapolis, Indiana

March 9, 2004

 

----
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 2 5 2016 

lNG DOCKET 

In The Matter Of: 

JOSEPH MARIDON, SR. 

Respondent 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

JOINT CASE STATUS REPORT 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0116 

Case No. 2012WP190142 

Judge J. E Sullivan 

On July 8, 2016 the parties through Walter L. Ayers, Respondents Co-Counsel, and David R. 

Shayne, Complainant's Counsel, conferred telephonically and file this Joint Case Status Report. 

I. August 31, 2016 Prehearing Status Conference. Both parties are available for this 

conference. 

2. Completeness of the Record: The parties agree to insure the record is complete by 

individually re-submitting copies of the records listed by the Court to FDMS, the Court 

and the other party by no later than August 20, 2016 

3. Discovery Requests: There are no pending Discovery Requests by either party. 

4. Case Assessment: Dispositive motions are pending in this case for the Court's decision. 

The Case is otherwise ready for hearing. 

5. Preferred Calendar Availability: To be discussed at August Prehearing Status 

. Conference 

6 .. Other Matters to be addressed: Any additional prehearing motions that maybe filed with 

·the Court. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Is/ Walter L. Avers August 5. 2016 

Walter L. Ayers Date 

Attorney at Law 

Co-Counsel for Respondent 

Ayers Law Firm, P.L.L.C. 

1312.N. Monroe St., Suite 133 

Spik.ade, W A 992Ql 

{

' \.'./ ', (\ \ -~«/c' " '; ·) _- D~vid F; Shayne Date 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the ,Regional Counsel 

1601 Lind Ave. SW · 

Renton, WA 98057 
Docket No. FAA-2014-0116 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building--Suite 2Wl000 

Mr. David F. Shayne 

Complainantcs· Counsel 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-2165 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

Mr. Joseph R. Maridon, Jr. 

Re.spondent ·s Co- Counsel 

Attorney at Law 

Maridon Law Firm 

50 S. Jones Blvd., Suite l 02 

Las Vegas, NV 89107 

Walter L. Ayers 

Attorney at Law 

Co-Counsel for Respondent 

Ayers Law Firm, P.L.L.C. 

1312 N. Monroe St., Suite 133 

Spokane, W A 99201 

ONE COPY 

Joseph Maridon, Sr. 

Respondent 

9212 E. Frederick Ave 

Spokane, W A 99206-4303 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Depattment of Transportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

AUG 1 0 2016