alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Donald Mitchell, Respondent, *v.*The Dunmore Realty Company, Appellant.

*Mitchell*v. *Dunmore Realty Co.,*135 App. Div. 583, modified.

(Argued May 31, 1910;

decided June 17, 1910.)

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 31, 1909, which reversed a judgment dismissing the complaint entered upon an order of Special Term granting a motion by defendant for judgment on the pleadings in an action for the foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien.

The following questions were certified: “ 1. In a case where the court by order had granted judgment on the pleadings dismissing the complaint on motion of one of the several defendants under section 547 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and judgment had been duly entered upon such order dismissing the complaint as to the defendant, the moving party, and awarded costs in favor of said defendant against the plaintiff, can the plaintiff appeal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court from such final judgment dismissing the complaint, giving notice in the notice of appeal that upon such appeal the plaintiff intends to bring up for review the interlocutory order of the Special Term dismissing the complaint on the pleadings and directing such judgment ? 2. Does an appeal from a final judgment entered upon an order granting judgment under section 547 of the Code of Civil Procedure lie to the Appellate Division, and upon such appeal can the Appellate Division review the interlocutory order granting such judgment on the pleadings where notice is given that the appellant intends to review such order on the appeal from the judgment? ”

*W. B. Symmes, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Walter II. Dodd*and *Howard A. Sperry*for respondent.

Order modified by striking out all provisions relating to costs and by ordering a new trial, with costs to abide the event, and as modified affirmed, with costs to abide the event. *531Questions certified not answered because the appeal is from a final judgment; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J.’, Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Hisoook and Chase, JJ.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Friday, July 21, 1995 (99), Para 99.14 Recorded Vote]
[Page 1173]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.99.14  recorded vote

  A recorded vote by electronic device was ordered in the Committee of 
the Whole on the following amendment submitted by Mr. OLVER:

       Page 71, after line 2, insert the following new section:
       Sec.  (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds 
     made available in this Act shall be used to pay the salaries 
     of personnel to provide assistance to livestock producers 
     under provisions of title VI of the Agricultural Act of 1949 
     if crop insurance protection or nonuninsured crop disaster 
     assistance for the loss of feed produced on the farm is 
     available to the producer under the Federal Crop Insurance 
     Act, as amended.
       (b) Corresponding Increase in Funds.--The amount otherwise 
     provided in this Act for ``Rural Development Performance 
     Partnerships'' is hereby increased by $60,000,000.

It was decided in the

Yeas

169

negative

Nays

248
```
§ 179.10 Tank mounting. ( a ) The manner in which tanks are attached to the car structure shall be approved. The use of rivets to secure anchors to tanks prohibited.
( b ) [Reserved]
Exhibit 21

Energy East Corporation





|Subsidiaries                              | State of Incorporation
|----------------------------------------- | ----------------------
|Central Maine Power Company               | Maine                 
|Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation       | Connecticut           
|Energy East Enterprises, Inc.             | Maine                 
|Energy East Management Corporation        | Delaware              
|Maine Electric Power Co., Inc.            | Maine                 
|Maine Natural Gas Corporation             | Maine                 
|NORVARCO                                  | Maine                 
|New York State Electric & Gas Corporation | New York              
|The Berkshire Gas Company                 | Massachusetts         
|The Energy Network, Inc.                  | Delaware              
|The Southern Connecticut Gas Company      | Connecticut
§ 1540.209 Fees for security threat assessment. This section describes the payment process for completion of the security threat assessments required under this subpart. ( a ) *Fees for security threat assessment.* ( 1 ) TSA routinely establishes and collects fees to conduct the security threat assessment process. These fees apply to all entities requesting a security threat assessment. TSA reviews the amount of the fee periodically, at least once every two years, to determine the current cost of conducting security threat assessments. TSA determines fee amounts and any necessary revisions to the fee amounts based on current costs, using a method of analysis consistent with widely accepted accounting principles and practices, and calculated in accordance with the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 9701 and other applicable Federal law.
( 2 ) TSA will publish fee amounts and any revisions to the fee amounts as a notice in the Federal Register.
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Remittance of fees.* ( 1 ) The fees required under this subpart must be remitted to TSA in a form and manner acceptable to TSA each time the applicant or an aircraft operator, foreign air carrier, indirect air carrier, or certified cargo screening facility submits the information required under § 1540.203 or § 1540.207 to TSA.
( 2 ) Fees remitted to TSA under this subpart must be payable to the “Transportation Security Administration” in U.S. currency and drawn on a U.S. bank.
( 3 ) TSA will not issue any fee refunds, unless a fee was paid in error.
[74 FR 47700, Sept. 16, 2009, as amended at 76 FR 51867, Aug. 18, 2011]
Editorial Note on Part 192
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 192 appear at 71 FR 33406, June 9, 2006.

§ 192.623 Maximum and minimum allowable operating pressure; Low-pressure distribution systems. ( a ) No person may operate a low-pressure distribution system at a pressure high enough to make unsafe the operation of any connected and properly adjusted low-pressure gas burning equipment.
( b ) No person may operate a low pressure distribution system at a pressure lower than the minimum pressure at which the safe and continuing operation of any connected and properly adjusted low-pressure gas burning equipment can be assured.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40378

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ALFREDO ARAGUZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:11-CR-1-1

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Alfredo Araguz

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Araguz has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 20, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40378 Document: 00513804858 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2016
No. 16-40378

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-40378 Document: 00513804858 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2016
ALVIN R. SQUIRES

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 124

________ _____________________/

Opinion filed August 12, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Kevin J. Carroll , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Attorney General, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS

, C.J., WETHERELL

, and BILBREY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1991

To change the authorized depth for the project for navigation at Manistique

Harbor, Michigan, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 30, 1995

Mr. STUPAK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To change the authorized depth for the project for navigation

at Manistique Harbor, Michigan, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. NAVIGATION PROJECT AT MANISTIQUE HAR4 BOR, MICHIGAN.

5 (a) SAND AND STONE CAP.—The project for naviga6 tion, Manistique Harbor, Schoolcraft County, Michigan,

7 authorized by the first section of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act

8 making appropriations for the construction, repair, and

9 preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors,

10 and for other purposes’’, approved March 3, 1905 (33
2

•HR 1991 IH

1 Stat. 1136), is modified to permit installation of a sand

2 and stone cap over sediments affected by polychlorinated

3 biphenyls in accordance with an administrative order of

4 the Environmental Protection Agency.

5 (b) PROJECT DEPTH.—

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para7 graph (2), the project described in subsection (a) is

8 modified to provide for an authorized depth of 18

9 feet.

10 (2) EXCEPTION.—The authorized depth shall be

11 12.5 feet in the areas where the sand and stone cap

12 described in subsection (a) will be placed within the

13 following coordinates: 4220N–2800E to 4220N–

14 3110E to 3980N–3260E to 3190N–3040E to

15 2960N–2560E to 3150N–2300E to 3680N–2510E

16 to 3820N–2690E and back to 4220N–2800E.

17 (c) HARBOR OF REFUGE.—The project described in

18 subsection (a), including the breakwalls, pier, and author19 ized depth of the project (as modified by subsection (b)),

20 shall continue to be maintained as a harbor of refuge.

Æ
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Friday, August 4, 1995 (109), Para 109.49 Deletions of Sponsors from Public Bills and Resolutions]
[Page 1299]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.109.49  deletions of sponsors from public bills and resolutions

  Under clause 4 of rule XXII, sponsors were deleted from public bills 
and resolutions as follows:

       H.R. 1289: Mr. Mfume.
       H.R. 1853: Ms. McKinney.
       H.R. 2062: Mr. Mfume.
```
-----Original Message----- 

From: barrysparkes@yahoo.com [mailto:barrysparkes@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 8:42 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone and 

Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (RIN 

1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from charging 

higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket expenses for mental 

health treatment than they would for other physical health care. Thank you 

for ensuring that mental health care and physical health care coverage are 

included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

barry sparkes 

427 southampton road 

Holyoke, MA 01040
EXHIBIT 32

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 Realmark Property Investors Limited Partnership - II (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph M. Jayson, Individual        General Partner and Principal Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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

     (2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Partnership.

     August 17, 2009          /s/ Joseph M. Jayson                           Date                     Joseph M. Jayson,     

                                         Individual General Partner and                                                 Principal Financial Officer
§ 178.1040 Preparation of Flexible Bulk Containers for testing. ( a ) Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, each Flexible Bulk Container must be closed in preparation for testing and tests must be carried out in the same manner as if prepared for transportation. All closures must be installed using proper techniques and torques.
( b ) If the material to be transported is replaced for test purposes by a non-hazardous material, the physical properties (grain, size, viscosity) of the replacement material used that might influence the results of the required tests must correspond as closely as possible to those of the hazardous material to be transported. It is permissible to use additives, such as bags of lead shot, to achieve the requisite total package mass, so long as they do not affect the test results.
-----Original Message----- 

From: tiredterry@yahoo.com [mailto:tiredterry@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 10:08 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Terry Peterson 

667 Thorn Street 

Imperial Beach, CA 91932
**EXHIBIT
      31.2**





I,
      Wang,
      Xiao Jun, certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Dark Dynamite Inc.





2.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the 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 annual report;





3.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects our
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows as of, and for, the
      periods presented in this annual report;





4.
      Our
      other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
      disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(c)
      and 15d-(e)) for us 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 us, including its consolidates 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 our 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 our internal control over financial reporting
      that
      occurred during our most recent fiscal period that has materially affected,
      or
      is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial
      reporting; and





5.
      Our
      other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
      evaluation, to our auditors and the audit committee of our board of directors
      (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a)
      all
      significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
      could adversely affect our ability to record, process, summarize and report
      financial data and have identified for our auditors any material weaknesses
      in
      internal controls (all of which do not apply); and





b)
      any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in our internal controls, (all of which do not apply);
      and








Date:
      June 21, 2007





/s/
      Wang, Xiao Jun


Wang,
      Xiao Jun


Chief
      Financial Officer
CTRL-a to begin

ESC to stop

6.72

6.72

6.74

6.74

6.73

6.72

6.72

6.72

6.74

6.74

6.73 V

116°F

Continuous temperature and flow display
6.11

6.13

6.15

6.14

6.14

6.13

6.12

6.14

6.14

6.13

6.13 V

38.3 ft/s

s temperature and flow display
Massena West Pretest 

Anemometer Data

4-25-13

48.56603627 Vd Desired velocity in Duct in Method 14 room (ft/sec)

1.416666667 Dn Diameter of a roof monitor nozzle (ft)

1.229 Dd Diameter of a duct at sampling location (ft)

4.570133333 Vm Average velocity of the air stream in roof vents for 36hr period before test (ft/sec)

3.116 Vm Average velocity of the air stream in roof vents for 36 hr period before test (mph)

* To use, enter the new average Vm from anemometers 

Date: 4-25-13 TF MW and the spreadsheet automatically recalculates a new 

A = 0.29 desired duct velocity.

B = 0.20

Preliminary adjustment of velocity

delta P across entire traverse AVG = 0.707

Ts = 538 R

Vs = KpCp(sqrt delta P avg) X sqrt (Ts/Ps X Ms) Ps = 29.75 + 0.22 = 29.97

Ms = 28.84

Vs = (85.49)(0.84)(sqrt 0.707) X sqrt (538 / (29.97)(28.84)) Kp = 85.49

Cp = 0.84

Vs = 47.6 ft/sec
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Monday, July 24, 1995 (100), Para 100.17 Transportation Appropriations, FY 1996]
[Pages 1182-1183]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.100.17  transportation appropriations, fy 1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, pursuant to House Resolution 194 
and rule XXIII, declared the House resolved into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2002) making appropriations for the Department of 
Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 1996, and for other purposes.
  Mr. BEREUTER, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, resumed the

[[Page 1183]]

chair; and after some time spent therein,
```
#### Charles H. George and another, Appellants, v. Richard S. Grant, Respondent.

--Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
-----Original Message----- 

From: marybeth02176@dan-franklin.com [mailto:marybeth02176@danfranklin.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 4:36 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Mary-Beth Santarelli 

20 Garfield Rd 

m, MA 02176
#### § 1580.105 [Reserved]
Exhibit 32.1




                 CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of The
American Education Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended
June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey E. Butler, Chief
Executive 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, to my 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 result of the operations
of the Company.



By:  /s/ Jeffrey E. Butler
     ---------------------
     Jeffrey E. Butler
     Chief Executive Officer

     July 27, 2006
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT OF
PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
AND OF
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER 
OF

CENTRAL MAINE POWER COMPANY



PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

We, Sara J. Burns, President, and R. Scott Mahoney, Vice President - Controller & Treasurer, Clerk, of Central Maine Power Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) Central Maine Power Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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 Central Maine Power Company.

|Date:  March 14, 2005 | /s/Sara J. Burns       Sara J. Burns
       President                                                    
|--------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      | /s/R. Scott Mahoney
       R. Scott Mahoney
       Vice President - Controller & 
       Treasurer, Clerk
Exhibit 32 .1



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 Viropro, Inc, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending February 28, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Serge Beausoleil, acting as Chief Executive 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/ Serge Beausoleil

_____________________________________________

Serge Beausoleil, President & CEO

Dated:  April 20, 2009



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