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

No. 4920.

#### Judge of Probate *v.*Peerless Insurance Company.

Submitted April 5, 1961.

Decided May 31, 1961.

*323*James M. Riley, Jr.*and *Edward F. Smith*for the State of New Hampshire, Department of Employment Security.

*Wiggin, Nourie, Sundeen, Nassikas .& Pingree*for defendant, furnished no brief.

Kenison, C. J.

Suits upon probate bonds can be maintained only by reason of and in accordance with statutory provisions. *Judge of Probate*v. *Company,*94 N. H. 177, 179. RSA ch. 565 which prescribes the procedure for such suits provides in pertinent part as follows: “9 Forfeiture. When it shall appear, upon confession, verdict, demurrer or in any other way, that the penalty of the bond is forfeited judgment shall be rendered against the defendant for such penalty; and such judgment shall be security for all parties interested. 10 Judgment. Upon a hearing in chancery on such forfeiture, the court shall examine and ascertain the claims of the parties whose names are indorsed on the writ; and judgment shall be rendered for such parties respectively for the amount so ascertained *. ... ”*

To obtain judgment in the suit upon the bond, the State, as an endorser, must show the liability of the executrix to pay its claim. *Lisbon Sav. Bank &c. Co.*v. *Moulton’s Est.,*91 N. H. 477, 479. In general all claims, unless admitted, must be liquidated before *324they can be recovered upon a probate bond. *Probate*v. *Adams,*49 N. H. 150; *Judge of Probate*v. *Lane,*51 N. H. 342.

Plaintiff’s claim in *Lisbon Sav. Bank &c. Co.*v. *Moulton’s Est.,*91 N. H. 477, was unliquidated and its validity and amount had to be determined first by an accounting in probate court which had sole original jurisdiction thereof before a judgment could be rendered in chancery. Although the proceedings in the *Lisbon*case were under what is now RSA 556:28, if the plaintiff had been an endorser on a probate bond it would have had to await a determination of the amount of its claim by the probate court before judgment could have been rendered under RSA 565:10. *Judge of Probate*v. *Lane, supra,*345.

However in the case at bar the State had a judgment of the Superior Court adjudicating that Ida P. Shea, executrix, was indebted to it in an amount certain. Its claim was liquidated by a judgment at law which the Trial Court found could not be attacked collaterally. There was nothing to be determined by the probate court as to the validity and amount of this claim. See *Judge of Probate*v. *Lee,*72 N. H. 247, 248; anno. 119 A. L. R. 83, 111. It was therefore the function of the Superior Court to “examine and ascertain” the State’s claim and to render judgment for the amount so ascertained as required by RSA 565:10.

*Exceptions sustained.*

Duncan, J., dissented; the others concurred.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 20, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54980-54981]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7769]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Business Board; Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Department of Defense, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Business Board (DBB) will meet in open session on 
Thursday, September 28, 2006 at the Pentagon, Washington, DC from 8:30 
a.m. to 9:30 a.m. The mission of the DBB is to advise the Secretary of 
Defense on effective strategies for implementation of best business 
practices of interest to the Department of Defense. At this meeting, 
the Board will deliberate on recommendations regarding a unified 
medical system. Topics to be covered include objectives of a unified 
medical system, cost savings and transition recommendations.

DATES: Thursday, September 28, 2006, 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: 1155 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C288, Washington, DC 20301-
1155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Members of the public who wish to 
attend the meeting must contact the Defense Business Board no later 
than Wednesday, September 27th for further information about escort 
arrangements in the Pentagon. Additionally, those who wish to provide 
input to the Board should submit written comments by Tuesday, September 
26th to allow time for distribution to the Board members prior to the 
meeting. The DBB may be contacted at: Defense Business Board, 1155 
Defense Pentagon, Room 3C288, Washington, DC 20301-1155, via e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#13777675767d60767166607a7d766060717c72617721537c60773d7e7a7f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3c58595a59524f595e494f5552594f4f5e535d4e580e7c534f5812515550">[email protected]</span></a> or via phone at (703) 697-2168.


    Special Note: During the September 6, 2006 DBB meeting, follow-
on recommendations to the Board's presentation were requested to be 
delivered by October 1, 2006. Due to the time constraints of the 
request, this notice has not been published within the 15 day 
notification requirement. However, to facilitate maximum 
particiaption from the public, requests for attendance will be 
honored through close of business, Wednesday, September 27, 2006.



[[Page 54981]]


    Dated: September 14, 2006.
C.R. Choate,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 06-7769 Filed 9-19-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  (as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ TIMOTHY RICETimothy RiceChief Executive Officer and President (Principal
Executive Officer)  Exhibit 32.1
#### § 665.421 Definitions.

As used in §§ 665.420 through 665.439, *Mariana coral reef ecosystem component species* (*Mariana coral reef ECS)* are those species identified in the Marianas Archipelago FEP and are not defined as MUS or another ECS in this subpart.

[84 FR 2774, Feb. 8, 2019]
#### § 665.407 At-sea observer coverage.

All fishing vessels subject to §§ 665.400 through 665.407 must carry an observer when directed to do so by the Regional Administrator.
#### § 1150.22 Signature of documents.

The signature of a party, authorized officer, employee or attorney constitutes a certification that he/she has read the document, that to the best of his/her knowledge, information, and belief there is a good ground to support it, and that it is not interposed for delay. If a document is not signed or is signed with intent to defeat the purpose of this section, it may be stricken as sham and false and the proceeding may proceed as though the document had not been filed.
# EUR-Lex - 11957A048 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11957A048

**TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY ( E.A.E.C. - EURATOM ), TITLE TWO - PROVISIONS FOR THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF PROGRESS IN THE FIELD OF NUCLEAR ENERGY, CHAPTER V: JOINT UNDERTAKINGS, ARTICLE 48 **

*

*

++++

ARTICLE 48

THE COUNCIL MAY , ACTING UNANIMOUSLY ON A PROPOSAL FROM THE COMMISSION , MAKE APPLICABLE TO EACH JOINT UNDERTAKING ANY OR ALL OF THE ADVANTAGES LISTED IN ANNEX III TO THIS TREATY ; EACH MEMBER STATE SHALL FOR ITS PART ENSURE THAT THESE ADVANTAGES ARE CONFERRED .

THE COUNCIL MAY , IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAME PROCEDURE , LAY DOWN THE CONDITIONS GOVERNING THE CONFERMENT OF THESE ADVANTAGES .
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSome preliminary results of brush seal/rotor interference effects on leakage at zero and low RPM using a tapered-plug rotorSome preliminary brush seal leakage results for ambient temperature air are presented. Data for four nominal brush rotor radial clearances of -0.09, -0.048, -0.008, and 0.035 mm were taken by using a tapered plug rotor at 0 and 400 rpm with rotor runout of 0.127 mm peak to peak. The brush seal nominal bore diameter was 38 mm with 0.05 mm bristles at 200 bristles/mm of circumference and a 0.61 mm fence height. Leakages were greater than predicted, but agreement was reasonable. Leakage rates were not significantly altered by hysteresis or inlet flow variations. Visualization studies showed that the bristles followed the 400 rpm excitation, and loading studies indicated that bristles slid relative to one another.Document ID19910018245Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsHendricks, R. C.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH., United States)*Proctor, M. P.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH., United States)*Schlumberger, J. A.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH., United States)*Braun, M. J.*(Akron Univ. OH., United States)*Mullen, R. L.*(Case Western Reserve Univ. Cleveland, OH., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1991Subject CategoryMechanical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberE-6212NAS 1.15:104396NASA-TM-104396AIAA PAPER 91-3390Meeting InformationMeeting: Joint Propulsion ConferenceLocation: Sacramento, CACountry: United StatesStart Date: June 24, 1991End Date: June 27, 1991Sponsors:ASEE,AIAA,ASME,SAEAccession Number91N27559Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-62-52Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910018245.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
###### Editorial Note on Part 622

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 622 appear at 79 FR 57837, Sept. 26, 2014 and at 81 FR 32253, May 23, 2016.

#### § 622.432 [Reserved]
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 190 (Monday, October 2, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 57982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8409]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel, SBIR Topic 213 Phase II ``Portable e-Technology Tools For 
Real-Time Energy Balance Research''
    Date: October 26, 2006.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: NIH Events Management, Executive Plaza North, 6130 
Executive Boulevard, Conference Room C, Rockville, MD 20852, 
(Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Marvin L. Salin, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Cancer Institute, Special Review and 
Logistics Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, 6116 Executive 
Boulevard, Room 7073, MSC 8329, Bethesda, MD 20892-8329, 301-496-
0694, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cda0beaca1a4a38da0aca4a1e3a3a4a5e3aaa2bb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7a17091b1613143a171b131654141312541d150c">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 25, 2006.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 06-8409 Filed 9-29-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT32

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

       In connection with the Quarterly Report of Integrated EnvironmentalTechnologies, Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period endedSeptember 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the "Report"), I, William E. Prince, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 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/WilliamE. Prince

WilliamE. Prince

Presidentand Chief Executive Officer

November 12,2004
August 3, 2015

Mr. Zackary J. Tempesco

1133 Whitner Road

Reading, PA 19605

Dear Mr. Tempesco:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

part 21 and §§ 45.23(b), 61.3, 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 

91.203(a) and (b), 91.205(b), 91.215, 91.405(a), 94.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and 

(b)(3) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process 

your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your May 20, 2015, exemption request into the public docket 

(No. FAA−2015−2073), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3
Exhibit 32.1

SATELLITE SECURITY CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Satellite
Security Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John L. Phillips, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 16, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ John L. Phillips
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  | John L. Phillips       
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  | Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-2042

___________

In re: David A. Russ, *

*

Debtor, *

*

------------------------------------------------ *

* Appeal from the United States

Kevin J. Lamson, * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Appellant, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

v. *

*

David A. Russ, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: March 26, 2001

 Filed: March 29, 2001

___________

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Lamson continues his extended post-discharge effort to pull a valuable

asset, stock in Damark Corporation, into David Russ’s bankruptcy estate. Relevant

background is set forth in In re Russ, 187 F.3d 978 (8th Cir. 1999). In this proceeding,

Lamson moved to compel Russ to amend his bankruptcy schedules to include his
1The HONORABLE NANCY C. DREHER, United States Bankruptcy Judge for

the District of Minnesota.

2The HONORABLE ANN D. MONTGOMERY, United States District Judge

for the District of Minnesota. 

-2-

partnership interest in RuWest, which allegedly owned Damark stock. The bankruptcy

court1 denied the motion, finding that Russ and his partner had dissolved RuWest and

conveyed their interest in its assets to Russ’s wife some two years before Russ filed for

bankruptcy. On appeal, the district court2 affirmed, and Lamson now appeals to this

court. Having reviewed the record, we agree with the district court that the bankruptcy

court’s critical findings of fact are not clearly erroneous. Indeed, they are consistent

with, if not commanded by, the fact finding in earlier state court litigation in which

Lamson unsuccessfully sought to recover Damark stock. See DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566

N.W.2d 60 (Minn. 1997).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# EUR-Lex - 11992M/PRO/SEBC/32 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11992M/PRO/SEBC/32

**Treaty on European Union - Protocol on the statute of the european system of central banks and of the European Central Bank - Chapter VI: Financial provisions of the ESCB - Article 32: Allocation of monetary income of national central banks **

*
Official Journal C 191 , 29/07/1992 P. 0075 *

Article 32

Allocation of monetary income of national central banks

32.1. The income accruing to the national central banks in the performance of the ESCB's monetary policy function (hereinafter referred to as 'monetary income') shall be allocated at the end of each financial year in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

32.2. Subject to Article 32.3, the amount of each national central bank's monetary income shall be equal to its annual income derived from its assets held against notes in circulation and deposit liabilities to credit institutions. These assets shall be earmarked by national central banks in accordance with guidelines to be established by the Governing Council.

32.3. If, after the start of the third stage, the balance sheet structures of the national central banks do not, in the judgment of the Governing Council, permit the application of Article 32.2, the Governing Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide that, by way of derogation from Article 32.2, monetary income shall be measured according to an alternative method for a period of not more than five years.

32.4. The amount of each national central bank's monetary income shall be reduced by an amount equivalent to any interest paid by that central bank on its deposit liabilities to credit institutions in accordance with Article 19.

The Governing Council may decide that national central banks shall be indemnified against costs incurred in connection with the issue of bank notes or in exceptional circumstances for specific losses arising from monetary policy operations undertaken for the ESCB. Indemnification shall be in a form deemed appropriate in the judgment of the Governing Council; these amounts may be offset against the national central banks' monetary income.

32.5. The sum of the national central banks' monetary income shall be allocated to the national central banks in proportion to their paid-up shares in the capital of the ECB, subject to any decision taken by the Governing Council pursuant to Article 33.2.

32.6. The clearing and settlement of the balances arising from the allocation of monetary income shall be carried out by the ECB in accordance with guidelines established by the Governing Council.

32.7. The Governing Council shall take all other measures necessary for the application of this Article.
Backyard Bird Feeding
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of )

Congresswoman Maxine Waters and 

Citizens for Waters: Draft A Tally Vote

)

) 

)

AO 2024-02

CERTIFICATION

I, Vicktoria J. Allen, Deputy Secretary of the Federal Election 

Commission, do hereby certify that on February 15, 2024, the Commission 

failed by a vote of 1-5 to approve Draft A Tally Vote, as recommended in the 

Memorandum to the Commission dated February 13, 2024. 

Commissioner Cooksey voted affirmatively for the motion. 

Commissioners Broussard, Dickerson, Lindenbaum, Trainor, and Weintraub 

dissented. 

Attest:

Date Vicktoria J. Allen

Deputy Secretary of the Commission

February 15, 2024