alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FY 2006 Competitive Training Grants Program 

Concept Paper Submission 

Organization: 

Contact Information: 

Partner Organizations: 

Program Title: 

Issue Area Addressed: 

Target Capabilities Addressed: 

Training Level: 

Target Audience: 

Projected Numbers Trained: 
Program Description (1 page) 

What national problem will the proposed training program address? Provide data to substantiate the problem. How does the 

proposal link to the chosen issue area? 

1
Goals and Objectives (2 pages) 

Identify key goals and objectives clearly linked to addressing the issues identified in the problem description. Objectives must be 

measurable and attainable during the two year grant period. Ensure objectives include an overview of the program deliverables,

including a brief description of training materials, a brief description of training material contents, number of course offerings to 

be provided, location of course offerings, and number of projected students. 

2
Goals and Objectives continued 

3
Program Approach (2 pages) 

Clearly describe the training program and illustrate the approach that will be taken to develop the proposed training program. 

Ensure the program strategy addresses the problem and issue area. Describe the ability of the training program to build 

sustainable preparedness at the State and local level and address the learning approach to be applied. Briefly describe the tasks to 

be performed throughout the program development and the major deliverables to be provided. 

4
Program Approach continued 

5
Training Program Expertise (1 page) 

Describe how the proposal demonstrates past success in similar efforts. Briefly describe past efforts and applicability of 

experience to the proposed effort. What partnerships will be fostered to accomplish goals and objectives? Describe program 

staffing plan, highlighting areas of expertise as they apply to the proposed program. 

6
Initial Budget (1 page) 

Show initial budget line items and projected costs. Does budget include the cost of resources necessary to complete the G&T 

course development and approval process? (Refer to Section 6: Budget Overview of the solicitation for those resources) 

7

Personnel $ 

Fringe Benefits $ 

Travel $ 

Equipment $ 

Supplies $ 

Consultants and Contracts $ 

Other $ 

Indirect Costs $ 

TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET $
John A. Sobel

Joan Robinson McMillen Mark B. McCracken County Commissioners Kim C. Kesner County Solicitor Lisa McFadden Chief Clerk 

### c~c01M'\ty C~y

212E~~StYeet" C~PA 16830
June 16,2014
Michael D. Gonnas United States Department ofTransportation OfficeofAviation Analysis 1200 New Jersey Ave SE Washington, DC20590 Dear Mr. Gormas, We are writing in response to the United States Department ofTransportation's request for public comment in regards to proposals submitted to provide commercial passenger Essential Air Service (EAS) at the Clearfield-Jefferson Regional Airport. As the elected representatives who are responsible for appointing the Clearfield County members who serve Onthe Clearfield-Jefferson Regional Airport Authority, and in representing the interests of citizens and businesses who use the airport for commercial travel, we,the Clearfield County CommissiOners support the proposal submitted by SilverAirways. Wefeelthat flying to Washington / Dulles will offer more convenient flight connections fortravelers from the region. Additionally, the proposal provides for larger aircraft and also includes the possibility ofClearfield-Jefferson Regional Airport serving as amaintenance hub for SilverAirways. In conclusion, wewould ask that you approve the proposal by Silver Airways to provide Essential Air Service to the Clearfield-Jefferson Regional Airport.

Mark B.McCracken Clearfield County Commissioners

'"
***EXHIBIT 32 (b)***

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANICAL 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 report on Form 10-K of Mistral Ventures, Inc. for the annual period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“Report”), I, Kent Carasquero, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

|   | (3) | This Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (4) | The information contained in this Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the registrant at the end of the period covered by this Report and results of operations of the registrant for the period covered by this Report. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

/s/ Kent Carasquero

Kent Carasquero 

Chief Financial Officer

Date: April 5, 2008

 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

31
No. 56804.

#### Steinhardt & Kelly, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 179607-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action, the protest was overruled.
August 14, 1953

No. 57466.

Suit 4726.

#### United States *v.*Harry Grunberg.

C. D. 1376 reversed April 15, 1953. C. A. D. 520.
Case No. 8,823a.

#### In re McINTIRE.

[2 Hayw. & H. 339.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

March 13, 1860.

Motion to Admit a Wild to Probate.

1. A will to convey land must be perfect, and executed with all the forms and solemnities required by law. No defect in its execution can be aided or supplied by parol proof.

2. A will of personal property must be perfect on its face, or it must appear, if incomplete or defective, that it was intended by the testator that it should operate as his will in its unfinished state, or that he was prevented from completing the contemplated formalities by being overtaken by sickness or some other casualty.

A paper, acknowledged to have been written by the late Mr. Alexander Mclntire, and purporting to be his last will and testament, but without date or signature, was presented to the orphans’ court for probate. The case having been argued by the counsel for and against the paper as the will of the deceased, the judge gave the following as the judgment of the court.

BY THE COURT.

The said paper upon its face purports to dispose of all his estate, real and personal, as his last will and testament. It is proved to have been written by said Mclntire, and was found with another paper of his after his death, where it had doubtless been placed by said Mclntire, without date, and not signed. Dr. Young, his intimate friend, and physician in his last illness, proved that Mclntire said to him that he had made his will.

A will to convey lands must be perfect, executed with all the forms and solemnities required by law, and no defect in its execution can be aided or supplied by parol proof. It is equally true that the same strictness is not required in a will of personal property; but to constitute even a good will of personal property the paper must be either complete on its face, or it must appear if incomplete or defective, that it was intended by the testator that it should operate as his will in its unfinished or imperfect state, or that he was prevented from completing the contemplated formalities by being overtaken by sickness or death, or some other casualty. Plater v. Groome, 3 Md. 143; Tilghman v. Stewart, 4 Har. & J. 173; Barnes v. Syester [14 Md. 507], decided in the June term of 1859, being the will of Virginia W. Mason, propounded for probate, and refused both as to realty and personalty. See the opinion of Lord Loughborough in Mathews v. Warner, 4 Ves. 209.

Alexander Mclntire, deceased, was an intelligent man; he understood perfectly well the formalities necessary to make his will effective as to his estate, and it cannot be presumed that he intended this unfinished paper to operate as his will. This paper, therefore, cannot be admitted to' probate, and the motion is overruled.
No. 56806.

#### Amerex Trading Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 179187-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CEDRICK B. ALDERMAN,

Defendant.

CASE NO. CR06-117C

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the joint motion of the United States of America and

Defendant Cedrick B. Alderman to continue the trial date (Dkt. No. 48).

The current trial date is November 6, 2006. Defendant Alderman has joined in the requested

continuance, and the Government agrees that a continuance is necessary to allow Defendant to complete

discovery and prepare for trial. Accordingly, Defendant has waived speedy trial rights through January

16, 2007 (Dkt. No. 49). 

Given the complex nature of this case, the Court finds that a denial of the requested extensions

would unreasonably deny Defendant adequate preparation by their attorneys and would deny counsel

reasonable time to prepare. Due to these factors, exclusion of additional time under 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv) is appropriate.

Case 2:06-cr-00117-JCC Document 50 Filed 11/03/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER – 2

The proposed continuance of the trial does not appear to prejudice any party. The Court finds

that failure to grant the requested continuance likely would result in a miscarriage of justice. The Court

further finds that the interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial are outweighed by the

ends of justices, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the pre-trial motions cut-off date shall be set for

November 24, 2006, with a new trial date of January 8, 2007. Voir dire, Trial Briefs, and Jury

Instructions shall be due by January 4, 2007. The time between November 6, 2006 and the new trial date

shall be excludable time under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(8)(A) and

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). 

SO ORDERED this 3rd day of November, 2006.

AJohn C. Coughenour

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00117-JCC Document 50 Filed 11/03/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
13.1
  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 Annual Report of CNC Development Ltd. (the “Company”) on
Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our
knowledge:
 
 1.
              The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  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: [
]
 
 By:
                    /s/ William C. MorroName:
      William C. MorroTitle:
      Chief Executive
Officer
 
 A signed
copy of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CNC
Development Ltd. and will be retained by CNC Development Ltd. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Before the Third Division,

May 26, 1965

No. 69324.

#### Haruta *&*Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/8045, etc. (New York).

*439Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “T” consist of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 2484), and that the items marked “D” consist of cups and saucers the same as those the subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China & Glass Company*(47 CCPA 1, C.A.D. 719), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before The Third Division,

May 11, 1964

No. 68529.

protests 62/10787, etc. (New York).

#### Associated Dry Goods Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those the subject of Wm. S. *Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United, States*(39 CCPA 15, C.A.D. 458), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 88-3 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 88-3 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 88-3 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 3 of 3
# L_2009260EN.01002801.xml

| 3.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 260/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 260/28

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 21 September 2009

appointing one Greek member of the European Economic and Social Committee

(2009/731/EC, Euratom)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 259 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 167 thereof,

Having regard to Decision 2006/651/EC, Euratom (1),

Having regard to the proposal of the Greek Government,

Having regard to the opinion of the Commission,

Whereas a member’s seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the resignation of Mr Konstantinos POUPAKIS,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Mr Fotis AGADAKOS, Deputy Secretary of Finance of the General Worker’s Confederation of Greece, is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2010.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 21 September 2009.

For the Council

The President

T. BILLSTRÖM

---

(1)  
  OJ L 269, 28.9.2006, p. 13.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134408 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

LAURA K. FUNDUNBURKS, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134408 

 COA: 274928 

Ingham CC: 06-000062-NI 

CAPITAL AREA TRANSPORTATION 

AUTHORITY and MICHELLE BEARD, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 31, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the application or take other peremptory action. MCR 

7.302(G)(1). At oral argument, the parties are directed to discuss (1) whether the fact that 

the bus driver’s deposition had not been taken was a sufficient reason to deny her motion 

for summary disposition; and (2) whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial on 

the claim that defendant Beard’s conduct, including her action of closing the doors of the 

bus while the plaintiff was attempting to exit the vehicle, constituted gross negligence or, 

on the contrary, that no reasonable juror could conclude that defendant Beard’s conduct 

amounted to reckless conduct showing a substantial lack of concern as to whether injury 

would result, MCL 691.1407(7)(a), and thus that summary disposition should have 

entered for defendant Beard. MCL 691.1407(2)(c). See Stanton v City of Battle Creek, 

466 Mich 611, 620-621 (2002). The parties may file supplemental briefs within 42 days 

of the date of this order, but they should not submit mere restatements of their application 

papers. 

s0205 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 8, 2008 

 Clerk
No. 67597.

#### Hurricane Import Co. and Frank P. Dow Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 62/19869 (Seattle).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

An examination of the official papers indicating that the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
No. 55005.

#### Bergdorf Goodman Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 138832-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.
# United Sta tes Co urt of A ppea ls F O R T H E D I S T R

I C T O F C O L U M B I A

C I RC U I T 

# No. 11-1302 September Term, 2011 F I L E D O N 

### : A U G U S T 

### 21, 2012 EME H O M E R 

### C I TY 

### G E N E R A TI ON 

### , L .P., P E TI TI O N E R



### v. E N V I R ON M E N TA L 

### P R O TE C TI ON 

### A G E

N C Y 

### , R E S P ON D E

N T 

### S A N 

### M I G U E L 

### E L E C TR

I C 

### C O O P E R

A TI V E 

### , E T A L 

### ., I N TE R V E N O R S 

### Consolidated with 11-1315, 11-1323, 11-1329, 11-1338, 11- 1340, 11-1350, 11-1357, 11- 1358, 11-1359, 11-1360, 11- 1361, 11-1362, 11-1363, 11- 1364, 11-1365, 11-1366, 11- 1367, 11-1368, 11-1369, 11-1371, 11- 1372, 11-1373, 11-1374, 11- 1375, 11-1376, 11-1377, 11- 1378, 11-1379, 11-1380, 11-1381, 11- 1382, 11-1383, 11-1384, 11- 1385, 11-1386, 11-1387, 11- 1388, 11-1389, 11-1390, 11-1391, 11- 1392, 11-1393, 11-1394, 11- 1395

On Petitions for Review of a Final Rule of the Environme ntal Protection Ag ency

Be fore : R O G E R S 

### , G R

I F F I TH 

### and K A V A N A U G H 

### , Circuit Judges J U D G M E N T These c auses c ame on to be he ard on the petitions for revie w of a Final Rule of the Environmental Protec tion Age ncy and we re a

rg ued by counsel. On c onsideration ther eof, it is ORDERED and ADJUDG ED that the Tra nsport Rule and the Tr ansport Rule F I Ps be vaca ted and this proce eding be re manded to EPA, in ac corda nce w ith the opinion of the court filed he rein this date. EPA must continue administering CAI R pending the promulg ation of a va lid replac ement. P er C uriam

F OR THE COURT:

Mark J. L ang er, Cler

k BY : /s/ J ennife r M. Clark Deputy Clerk Date: August 21, 2012 Opinion for the c ourt filed by Circuit J udg e Kavanaug h. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit J udg e Rog ers. USCA Case #11-1302 Document #1390310 Filed: 08/21/2012 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

FELIX ADEOKUN,

 Defendant.

Case No. 06-5016M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 (X) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( X ) Defendant’s lack of sufficient ties to the community.

 ( ) Immigration and Naturalization Service detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Other:

 (X) Defendant has not overcome the rebuttable presumption. This order is entered without prejudice as to the defendant.

 

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal.

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 

January 31, 2006.

__s/ Karen L. Strombom_______________

Karen L Strombom, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-mj-05016-KLS Document 16 Filed 01/31/06 Page 1 of 1