alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64339-64340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8983]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission; Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public 
Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Veterans' 
Disability Benefits Commission has scheduled a meeting for November 16, 
2006, at the Embassy Suites Hotel, 900 10th Street, NW., Washington, 
DC. The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 4:15 p.m. The 
meeting is open to the public.
    The purpose of the Commission is to carry out a study of the 
benefits under the laws of the United States that are provided to 
compensate and assist veterans and their survivors for disabilities and 
deaths attributable to military service.
    The agenda for the meeting will include updates on the progress of 
the studies being conducted by the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) and 
the Institute of Medicine (IOM). The Commission will receive initial 
presentations on several draft Issue Papers. The Commission will also 
review and approve an Issue Paper outlining the Commission's position 
to

[[Page 64340]]

recommend lump sum payments be removed from consideration as an option 
for compensating veterans with disabilities.
    Interested persons may attend and present oral statements to the 
Commission, November 16. Oral presentations will be limited to five 
minutes or less, depending on the number of participants. Interested 
parties may also provide written comments for review by the Commission 
prior to the meeting or at any time, by e-mail to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#473122332235262934073122333424282a2a2e34342e28296924282a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f48291809186959a87b482918087979b99999d87879d9b9ada979b99">[email protected]</span></a> or by mail to Mr. Ray Wilburn, Executive 
Director, Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission, 1101 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20004.

    Dated: October 25, 2006.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 06-8983 Filed 10-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# zi nPIV Pe • ' "- t

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

MELANIE HOKE,

Petitioner,

v. OP 21-0034

FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, MISSOULA COUNTY,HON.SHANE A. VANNATTA,

Presiding, Respondent. 

# FLED JAN 26 2021

Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court 

### critttirterl°

Petitioner Melanie Hoke,via counsel, seeks a writ ofsupervisory control directing the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, to reverse its Order denying her motion to dismiss in the District Court's Cause No. DR-20-175. In that Order, the District Court denied Hoke's motion to dismiss pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), concluding that Petitioner Gregory Nardi's petition in that matter had stated a claim for which relief could be granted under § 41-9-102(4), MCA. In her petition for writ, Hoke argues that the District Court erred as a matter oflaw in denying her motion. Hoke further seeks to stay the proceedings in the District Courtpending the disposition ofthis petition. Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy that is sometimes justified when urgency or emergency factors exist making the normal appeal process inadequate, when the case involves purely legal questions, and when the other court is proceeding under a rnistake of law and is causing a gross injustice, constitutional issues of state-wide importance are involved, or, in a criminal case, the other court has granted or denied a motion to substitute a judge. M.R. App.P. 14(3). Consistent with Rule 14(3), it is the Court's practice to refrain from exercising supervisory control when the petitioner has an adequate remedy ofappeal.E.g.,Buckles v. Seventh JudicialDist. Court,No.OP 16-0517, 01/26/2021

Case Number: OP 21-0034

### 386 Mont. 393, 386 P.3d 545 (table)(Oct. 18, 2016);Lichte v. Mont. Eighteenth Judicial

Dist. Court,No.OP 16-0482, 385 Mont. 540,382 P.3d 868 (table)(Aug. 24,2016). Hoke has failed to establish that urgency or emergency factors rnake appeal an inadequate remedy in this case. Although she asserts that she will bear the burden and expense ofdiscovery and hearing ifthis rnatter is not dismissed, this Court has held that conserving resources, without more, is insufficient grounds to justify supervisory control where a party can seek review ofthe lower court's ruling on appeal and there is no evidence that reliefon appeal would be inadequate. Yellowstone Elec. Co. v. Mont. Seventh Judicial Dist. Court,No.OP-19-0348. 397 Mont.552,449 P.3d 787 (table)(Aug.6,2019). In this instance,Hoke has not dernonstrated that her remedy on appeal would be inadequate. Because we are denying Hoke's petition for writ of supervisory control, it is unnecessary to stay proceedings in the District Court. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition for writ ofsupervisory control is DENIED and DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for stay ofproceedings is DENIED as MOOT. The Clerk is directed to provide irnmediate notice of this Order to counsel for Petitioner, all counsel of record in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, Cause No.DR-20-175,and the Honorable Shane A.Vannatta,presiding Judge. DATED this ?--s-L day ofJanuary, 2021.

ChiefJustice3
#### Charles H. Boaz, Appellant, *v.*Frank W. Coolbaugh, Respondent.

(Argued April 18, 1907;

decided May 7, 1907.)

*Boaz*v. *Coolbaugh,*114 App. Div. 902, affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 25, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term in an action to rescind a sale of stock on the ground that it was induced by fraud.

' *Alexander Thain*and *B-urton Thompson Beach*for appellant.

*Frank 8.*Gannon, *Jr.,*and *Frank II. Gurry*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Hiscock, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Tootie Pie Company, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2007 (the Form 10-KSB) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |                                                      
|-------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|Dated: June 29, 2007 | /s/ Don L. Merrill, Jr.                              
|                     | Don L. Merrill, Jr.                                  
|                     | President and Chief Executive Officer                
|                     |                                                      
|Dated: June 29, 2007 | /s/ David Patterson                                  
|                     | David Patterson                                      
|                     | Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer
```

[109th Congress Public Law 219]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ219.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 334]]

Public Law 109-219
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To amend the Irrigation Project Contract Extension Act of 1998 to extend 
    certain contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation and certain 
       irrigation water contractors in the States of Wyoming and 
              Nebraska. <<NOTE: May 5, 2006 -  [S. 592]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Glendo Unit of the Missouri 
River Basin Project Contract Extension Act of 2005.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Glendo Unit of the Missouri River 
Basin Project Contract Extension Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. GLENDO UNIT OF THE MISSOURI RIVER BASIN CONTRACT EXTENSION.

    Section 2 of the Irrigation Project Contract Extension Act of 1998 
(112 Stat. 2816, 117 Stat. 1854) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``December 31, 2005'' and 
        inserting ``December 31, 2007''; and
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) by striking ``beyond December 31, 2005'' and 
                inserting ``beyond December 31, 2007''; and
                    (B) by striking ``before December 31, 2005'' and 
                inserting ``before December 31, 2007''.

    Approved May 5, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 592 (H.R. 4080):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 109-432 accompanying H.R. 4080 (Comm. on Resources).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 109-167 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 151 (2005):
                                    Nov. 16, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.
                                                        Vol. 152 (2006):
                                    Apr. 25, considered and passed 
                                        House.

                                  <all>
```
§ 331.4 Fishing. Unless otherwise authorized in writing by the District Engineer: ( a ) Fishing is only permitted in accordance with the laws and regulations of the State within whose exterior boundaries that portion of the WCA is located, and such laws and regulations which are now or may hereafter be in effect are hereby adopted as part of these regulations.
( b ) Fishing by means of the use of drugs, poisons, explosives, bow and arrow or electricity is prohibited.
( c ) Commercial fishing and fishing with gill nets, trammel nets, hoop nets, bow and arrow or trot lines is prohibited.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1447 

KA 13-00678 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TITO ROOSEVELT, ALSO KNOWN AS SAMUEL GAMBLIN, 

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (DAVID J. RUDROFF OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MATTHEW B. POWERS OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael F.

Pietruszka, J.), rendered March 18, 2013. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of promoting prison contraband in

the first degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Same Memorandum as in People v Roosevelt ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d

___ [Feb. 6, 2015]). 

Entered: February 6, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
# EUR-Lex - 12008E080 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E080

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART THREE: UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS - TITLE V: AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE - Chapter 2: Policies on border checks, asylum and immigration - Article 80 **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0078 - 0078 *

Article 80

The policies of the Union set out in this Chapter and their implementation shall be governed by the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, including its financial implications, between the Member States. Whenever necessary, the Union acts adopted pursuant to this Chapter shall contain appropriate measures to give effect to this principle.

--------------------------------------------------
#### § 51.72 If a new concessioner is awarded the contract, what is the relationship between leasehold surrender interest and possessory interest?

If a new concessioner is awarded a leasehold surrender interest concession contract and is required to pay a prior concessioner for possessory interest in real property improvements, the new concessioner will have a leasehold surrender interest in the real property improvements under the terms of its new concession contract. The initial value of the leasehold surrender interest (instead of initial construction cost) will be the value of the possessory interest as of the expiration or other termination of the 1965 Act possessory interest concession contract. This leasehold surrender interest will apply even if the related possessory interest real property improvements are not capital improvements as defined in this part. In the event a new concessioner obtains a leasehold surrender interest in only a portion of a structure as a result of the acquisition of a possessory interest from a prior concessioner, depreciation for purposes of leasehold surrender interest value will apply only to the portion of the structure to which the possessory interest applied.
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 Quarterly Report of Jupitermedia Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald J. ONeill, Vice President and Chief Financial 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.



|                                           |  | 
|------------------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/ Donald J. ONeill                      |  | 
|Donald J. ONeill                          |  | 
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|May 10, 2007                               |  |
#### § 1226.2 Scope.

This part applies to all volunteers serving in a program authorized by title II of the Act, including the Foster Grandparent Program, the Senior Companion Program, and The Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP). This part also applies to employees or sponsoring organizations, whose salaries, or other compensation, are paid, in whole or in part, with agency funds.

[80 FR 63459, Oct. 20, 2015]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Foreign Claims Settlement Commission 

          - [F.C.S.C. Meeting Notice No. 1-06] 

The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its regulations (45 CFR Part 504) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of meetings for the transaction of Commission business and other matters specified, as follows: 

# Date and Time: 

Thursday, February 9, 2006, at 11 a.m. 

# Subject Matter: 

(1) Issuance of Proposed Decisions in claims against Albania. 

(2) Issuance of Proposed Decisions in claims against Cuba. 

# Status: 

Open. 

                        All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: Administrative Officer, Foreign Claims Settlement                               ( print page 4936)                            Commission, 600 E Street, NW., Room 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-6988.                     

Mauricio J. Tamargo,

Chairman. 

[FR Doc. 06-875 Filed 1-26-06; 11:10 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-01-P
CERTIFICATIONS
EX-31.1   CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

I, Ronald J. Chapman, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ASI Entertainment,
Inc.;

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 officer 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 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) 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 officer 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 functions):

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.

Date: May 10, 2008

/s/ Ronald J. Chapman

Ronald J. Chapman
Chief Executive Officer
                                   - 12 -
<PAGE>
#### Albert Tompkins, Respondent, *v.*Fonda Glove Lining Company, Appellant.

(Submitted April 29, 1907;

decided May 21, 1907.)

Motion for re-argument denied, with ten dollars costs. (See 188 N. T. 261.) _
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION III 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029 

Honorable Michael Krancer, Secretary 

Department of Environmental Protection 

Rachel Carson State Office Building 

P.O. Box 2063 

Harrisburg, P A 17105-2063 

Dear Secretary Krancer: 

JUl 1 8 2011 

On January 25,2011, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision 

to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Department of Environmental 

Protection pertaining to amendments to 25 Pa. Code Chapters 121, 129, and 130 (relating to 

general provisions; standards for sources; and standards for products). The revision amends the 

existing regulation at Section 129.51 relating to general) and adds provisions under new Sections 

129.77 and 130.701 - 130.708 (relating to control of emissions from the use or application of 

adhesives, sealants, primers and solvents and adhesives, sealants, primers and solvents) for the 

control of emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from the manufacture, sale, use, or 

application of adhesives, sealants, primers, and solvents. The revision also amends Section 

121.1 (relating to definitions) to add new terms and definitions and revise existing terms and 

definitions. EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and technically complete, 

and is reviewing it to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR). 

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Mr. Gregory Becoat, 

at (215) 814-2036, the principal contact for this rulemaking. 

cc: Ms. Joyce Epps, PADEP 

Ms. Arlene Shulman, P ADEP 

Sincerely, 

'J)lCIM!L 

Diana Esher, Director 

~ 

Air Protection Division 

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474
Data of 

report 

1970 

Sept 4 

~ruutr nf tqr luitt~ itutra 

NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS 

F S {Convened January 3, 1969 

IRST ESSION AdJOurned December 23, 1969 

S S {Convened January 19, 1970 

ECOND ESSION 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Prepared under the directton of FRANCIS R. VALEO, Secretary of the Senate 

By GERALD A. HAcKETT, Executive Clerk 

Wednesday, September 9, 1970 

TREATY 

Calendar Treaty No SUbJeCt Actton of corrumttee No 

6 Ex F (91st Cong, Supplementary Extradition ConventiOn Reported favorably by 

2d ses~) With France Mr Fulbrrght, from 

th<- Committee on 

Formgn Relatwns, 

I 

I w1th a prmted report 

(See Ex Rept 91-23) 

4b-022-70-No 212 

U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1970
§ 13.27 Agency review. ( a ) The appellate authority for any proceedings shall be the official or component that would have jurisdiction over an appeal of the merits.
( b ) If either the applicant or the agency's litigating party seeks review of the adjudicative officer's decision on the fee application, it shall file and serve exceptions within 30 days after issuance of the initial decision. Within another 30 days after receipt of such exceptions, the opposing party, if it has not done so previously, may file its own exceptions to the adjudicative officer's decision. The appellate authority shall issue a final decision on the application as soon as possible or remand the application to the adjudicative officer for further proceedings. Any party that does not file and serve exceptions within the stated time limit loses the opportunity to do so.
[69 FR 2847, Jan. 21, 2004]
PMN Sanitized file MSDS Itaconix XDP