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

66227 

Federal Register 

Vol. 71, No. 218 

Monday, November 13, 2006 

Title 3— 

The President 

Notice of November 9, 2006 

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran 

On November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, the President declared 

a national emergency with respect to Iran pursuant to the International 

Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706) to deal with the 

unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, 

and economy of the United States constituted by the situation in Iran. 

Because our relations with Iran have not yet returned to normal, and the 

process of implementing the January 19, 1981, agreements with Iran is 

still underway, the national emergency declared on November 14, 1979, 

must continue in effect beyond November 14, 2006. Therefore, consistent 

with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), 

I am continuing for 1 year this national emergency with respect to Iran. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted 

to the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

November 9, 2006. 

[FR Doc. 06–9200 

Filed 11–9–06; 10:31 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with PRESDOCGWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
Exhibit 32.2 

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF 

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of GTJ REIT, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Periodic Report”), I, Ben Zimmerman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

|   | 1. | the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date: April 11, 2016 |   | /s/ Ben Zimmerman       |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                 |   | Ben Zimmerman           |
|                 |   | Chief Financial Officer |
§ 156.1130 Quality improvement strategy. ( a ) *General requirement.* A QHP issuer participating in an Exchange for 2 or more consecutive years must implement and report on a quality improvement strategy including a payment structure that provides increased reimbursement or other market-based incentives in accordance with the health care topic areas in section 1311(g)(1) of the Affordable Care Act, for each QHP offered in an Exchange, consistent with the guidelines developed by HHS under section 1311(g) of the Affordable Care Act.
( b ) *Data requirement.* A QHP issuer must submit data that has been validated in a manner and timeframe specified by the Exchange to support the evaluation of quality improvement strategies in accordance with § 155.200(d) of this subchapter.
( c ) *Timeline.* A QHP issuer must submit data annually to evaluate compliance with the standards for a quality improvement strategy in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, in a manner and timeframe specified by the Exchange.
( d ) *Multi-State plans.* Issuers of multi-State plans, as defined in § 155.1000(a) of this subchapter, must provide the data described in paragraph (b) of this section to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, in the manner and timeframe specified by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
[80 FR 10876, Feb. 27, 2015]
i'tuatt nf tqr luitt~ itutrs 

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 unde1' the di1'ection of FRANCIS R. VALEO, Secretary of the Senate 

By GERALD A. HACKETT, Executive Clerk 

Friday, March 20, 1970 

PENDING EXECUTIVE BUSINESS 

Calendar No. 21. The nomination of George Harrold Carswell, of Florida, to be an Associate Justice of the 

Supreme Court of the United States. 

NOMINATIONS 

Date of Calendar Message Name of nommec Office Predecessor 

report No. No. 

SUPREME COURT OF 

THE UNITED STATES 

1970 

Feb. 27 21 1 George Harrold Carswell, An Associate Justice of Abe Fortas, resigned. 

of Florida the Supreme Court of [Reported favorably 

the United States. by Mr. Eastland, 

from the Committee 

on the Judiciary, 

together with individual views. (See 

Ex. Rept. 91-14, 

9lst Cong., 2d 

sess.)] 

[NEW REPORTS] 

DEPARTME~T OF 

TRANSPORTATION 

Mar 19 35 68 Charles D. Baker, of An Assistant Secretary of Paul W. Chermgton, 

Massachusetts. Transportation. resigned. 

DIRECTOR OF 

SELECTIVE SERVICE 

19 36 90 Curtis W. Tau, of Director of Selective Gen. Lewis B. 

Virginia. Service Hershey. 

NOMINATIONS PLACED ON THE SECRETARY'S DESK 

In the Coast Guard 

The nominations beginning Michael Ray Adams, to be ensign, and ending Merle L. Cochran, to be chief 

warrant officer (W-4), which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record 

on Mar. 18, 1970. 

37-022--70--No.15S U 5 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1970
#### Jessie I. Knickerbocker, Respondent, *v.*Willis N. Britton et al., Appellants.

*Knickerbocker*v. Britton, 122 App. Div. 899, appeal dismissed.

(Argued January 6, 1908;

decided January 14, 1908.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered November 29, 1907, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.

The motion was made upon the grounds that no question of law was involved, that the Appellate Division had unanimously decided that the findings of fact were supported by the evidence and that the exceptions were frivolous.

*Adelbert Cronise*for motion.

*Frederick J. Smythe*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.
#### The Village of Waverly, Respondent, v. The Waverly Water Company et al., Appellants.

*Tillage of Waverly*v. *Waverly Water Go.,*127 App. Div. 440, affirmed.

(Argued January 5, 1909;

decided January 19, 1909.)

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered June 26,1908, which affirmed an order of Special Term overruling certain preliminary objections to the petition in a proceeding to acquire, under the power of eminent domain, the property of the defendants consisting of a private water supply for the village of Waverly.

*546The following question was certified : *“*Is the petition sufficient in.law to authorize the granting of the relief asked for 2”

*Frederick E. Hawkes*and *Frederick Collin*for appellants.

*Myron N.*Tompkins, *Randolph Horton*and *Frank A. Bell*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.
Exhibit 23.1  CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  We consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8
No.333-139857 ) pertaining to the Idearc Inc. Long Term Incentive Plan and ( Form S-8
No. 333-141604) pertaining to the Idearc Savings and Security Plan for
Mid-Atlantic Associates, Idearc Savings and Security Plan for New York and New
England Associates, and The Idearc Savings Plan for Management Employees of our
reports dated March 9, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Idearc Inc. and subsidiaries and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting of Idearc Inc., included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2008.   /s/ Ernst & Young
  LLPDallas, TexasMarch 10, 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6934

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. CLIFTON ERVIN MCLEAN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:05-cr-00254-GBL-1; 1:09-cv-00289-GBL)

Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 27, 2009

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clifton Ervin McLean, Appellant Pro Se. Erik R. Barnett, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Clifton Ervin McLean seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McLean has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
SERVED JULY 20, 2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09NM0012 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FAA No. FAA-2009-0979 

PROCEDURAL ORDER 

Paragraph #2 of the Procedural Order is amended as follows: 

WHEREFORE, the parties be and are hereby ORDERED to adhere to the 

following procedural schedule: 

... On or before November 15, 2010, the parties shall conclude all discovery 

including, but not limited to, depositions, document production, responses to 

production requests and/or interrogatories. If the parties cannot resolve a 

discovery dispute they shall submit the dispute to the under signed for resolution 

in a timely manner... 

[ichard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP09NM0012 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Todd C. Emerson, Respondent's Counsel 

Director, Government and Legal Affairs 

Sky West Airlines 

444 South River Road 

St. George, UT 84790 

TEL: 435-634-3530 

FAX: 435-634-3505 

Scott R. Morris, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, WA 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1417 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the follovt^ing address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 

2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
### Boiler Materials for Tomorro**w's Call RobertJ Wayland**  to : Cortney_Higgins Cc : eddinger.jim, johnson.mary, Cozzie.David

From: RobertJ W ayland/RTP/USEPA/US To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov Cc: eddinger.jim@epa.gov, johnson.mary@epa.gov, Cozzie.David@epamail.epa.gov

We dnesday, 10/24/2012 4:53 PM Cortney - Attached below are the slides we plan to use during tomorrow's call with you. thanx! bob Robert J. W ayland, Ph.D. Leader, Energy Strategies Group U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division Mail Code D243 - 01 RTP, NC 27711 Phone: (919) 541 - 1045 Cell: (919) 306 - 2290 Fax: (919) 541 - 5450
e - ma il: wayland.robertj@epa.gov
********************************************************* DRAFT/Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt *********************************************************

OM B Staff Briefing_102512.pptx
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 35 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 35

Redesignating the Robert E. Lee Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery 
           as the ``Arlington House National Historic Site''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 21, 2023

  Mr. Kaine introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
  twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Redesignating the Robert E. Lee Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery 
           as the ``Arlington House National Historic Site''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That--
            (1) the site administered by the National Park Service and 
        dedicated as a memorial to Robert E. Lee pursuant to the joint 
        resolution of June 29, 1955 (Public Law 84-107; 69 Stat. 190), 
        as amended by the joint resolution of June 30, 1972 (Public Law 
        92-333; 86 Stat. 401), shall after the date of the enactment of 
        this joint resolution be redesignated and known as the 
        ``Arlington House National Historic Site'';
            (2) any reference in any law, regulation, map, document, 
        paper, or other record of the United States to the site 
        referred to in paragraph (1) shall be considered to be a 
        reference to the Arlington House National Historic Site; and
            (3) the joint resolution of June 29, 1955 (Public Law 84-
        107; 69 Stat. 190), and the joint resolution of June 30, 1972 
        (Public Law 92-333; 86 Stat. 401), are repealed.
                                 <all>
```
Sullivan Probate Court,

No. 5250.

#### In re John L. Farwell Estate.

Argued September 11,1964.

Decided November 4, 1964.

*62*Leahy & Denault*for the trustee, furnished no brief.

*Sulloway, Hollis, Godfrey & Soden (Mr. James B. Godfrey*orally), for Caroline W. Farwell, executrix of the will of Grosvenor Farwell.

*Nighswander, Lord & Bownes*and *Conrad E. Snow (Mr. Snow*orally), for Grosvenor Farwell, Jr.

*Susan Bennett,*pro se, furnished no brief.

Kenison, G.J.

It is argued by Grosvenor Farwell, Jr. that the will evidences a purpose to divide the estate among the heirs as they existed at the death of the life beneficiary, and that this purpose should be effectuated. *Kimball*v. *Lancaster,*60 N. H. 264; *Hardy*v. *Gage,*66 N. H. 552. Reliance is placed in part on item 5 of the will: “If any of my heirs should bring any action at law or in equity against my wife, as Trustee, for any losses or errors of judgment made in good faith, such action brought by or on behalf of any heir shall immediately bar such heir from sharing or receiving any share or interest in my estate whatsoever at any time. ” However, this provision of the will, while not conclusive, is a strong indication that the testator considered his heirs at his death would succeed to his estate subject only to the interest he created in his wife for life. This item of the will is a recognition by the testator that his heirs would have an interest in his estate during his wife’s life and militates against a construction that would determine the heirs only after the decease of the wife. See 1 Nossaman, Trust Administration and Taxation, 5. 12.09 (2d *ed.*1959); Restatement, Property, *s.*308, *comment*a.

*63If a will makes a gift to the testator’s heirs and construed as a whole demonstrates a plan to determine the heirs at some time other than the date of the testator’s death, it will be enforced. *Watson*v. *Young,*102 N. H. 436. See also, 5 American Law of Property, *s.*22.60 (1952); Leach and Logan, Future Interests and Estate Planning, *pp.*458 *et seq.*(1961). The present will is not in that category. *National Shawmut Bank of Boston*v. *Zink*(Mass.), 196 N. E. 2d 917; *In re Simard Estate,*98 N. H. 454, 458; *Burpee*v. *Pickard,*94 N. H. 307, 309.

In the absence of any residuary clause in the will and the failure to make any provision for a gift over upon the termination of the trust for the widow, the balance of the trust fund passes as intestate property. *In re Simard Estate, supra;*4 Page, Wills, 5. 33.58 (Bowe-Parker Rev. 1961). In cases of intestacy or partial intestacy the property passes by force of the statute and the heirs or next .of kin are determined as of the testator’s death. *Burpee*v. *Pickard,*94 N. H. 307, 309. See Annot. 132 A.L.R. 1069; 27 A.L.R. 2d 691; 3 Powell, Real Property, *s.*375 (1952).

The probate court is advised that the balance in the trustee’s hands is to be distributed to the testator’s heirs as of the date of his death and the distribution will be made in equal shares to Susan Bennett and to the executrix of the will of Grosvenor Farwell.

*Remanded.*

All concurred.
§ 164.402 Definitions. As used in this subpart, the following terms have the following meanings: *Breach* means the acquisition, access, use, or disclosure of protected health information in a manner not permitted under subpart E of this part which compromises the security or privacy of the protected health information. ( 1 ) Breach excludes: ( i ) Any unintentional acquisition, access, or use of protected health information by a workforce member or person acting under the authority of a covered entity or a business associate, if such acquisition, access, or use was made in good faith and within the scope of authority and does not result in further use or disclosure in a manner not permitted under subpart E of this part.
( ii ) Any inadvertent disclosure by a person who is authorized to access protected health information at a covered entity or business associate to another person authorized to access protected health information at the same covered entity or business associate, or organized health care arrangement in which the covered entity participates, and the information received as a result of such disclosure is not further used or disclosed in a manner not permitted under subpart E of this part.
( iii ) A disclosure of protected health information where a covered entity or business associate has a good faith belief that an unauthorized person to whom the disclosure was made would not reasonably have been able to retain such information.
( 2 ) Except as provided in paragraph (1) of this definition, an acquisition, access, use, or disclosure of protected health information in a manner not permitted under subpart E is presumed to be a breach unless the covered entity or business associate, as applicable, demonstrates that there is a low probability that the protected health information has been compromised based on a risk assessment of at least the following factors: ( i ) The nature and extent of the protected health information involved, including the types of identifiers and the likelihood of re-identification;
( ii ) The unauthorized person who used the protected health information or to whom the disclosure was made;
( iii ) Whether the protected health information was actually acquired or viewed; and
( iv ) The extent to which the risk to the protected health information has been mitigated.
*Unsecured protected health information* means protected health information that is not rendered unusable, unreadable, or indecipherable to unauthorized persons through the use of a technology or methodology specified by the Secretary in the guidance issued under section 13402(h)(2) of Public Law 111-5.
[78 FR 5695, Jan. 25, 2013]
EXHIBIT 99.1

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

In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Stealth MediLabs, Inc.
(the Company) for the quarter ended January 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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; however, we have not obtained a review of
this filing by an independent accountant; 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: April 21,
2003

| | /s/
Howard E. Leventhal
Howard E. Leventhal
Chief Executive Officer andPrincipal Financial Officer
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**BG** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 1 - 0112 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MARK JAY PRICHARD ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 -day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including Septe mber 14 , 2021 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 10 2021

08/10/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0112
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 23, 2009

d0615 

# Order

June 23, 2009

138612

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138612 COA: 278960 Wayne CC: 06-005250-01 MARK ANTONIO OWENS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 12, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

H ATHAWAY , J., not participating. Justice Ha thaway recuses herself and will not participate in this case as sh e was the presiding trial cour t judge. See MCR 2.003(B).