alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-                      -                        -  About 
                      - Newsroom
                      -  Newsroom 
                      -  Events 
                      -  Blog 
                      -  Fact Sheets 
                      -  FEMA Live 
                      -  Mobile Products 
                      -  Newsletters 
                      -  Press Releases 
                      -  Podcast 
                      -  Social Media 
                      -  About Us 
                      -  Reports & Data 
                      -  FEMA in Action 

# Prepare Before a Disaster

                            - English 

Focuses on contracting actions recipients and subrecipients can take to prepare before a disaster strikes and addressing the procurement rules applicable during these times. 

**Date:**2024-06-11T15:00:002024-06-11T16:00:00June 11, 2024June 11, 2024

**Time:**3:00 pm - 4:00 pm

**Location:**Virtual

Register

## Event Details

FEMA’s Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) is offering a series of one-hour trainings on the federal procurement rules applicable to recipients and subrecipients purchasing under a FEMA grant award. 

Click the blue "Register" button at the top of this page to sign up for the training.

### Topic

Prepare Before a Disaster – Focuses on contracting actions recipients and subrecipients can take to prepare before a disaster strikes and addressing the procurement rules applicable during these times.

### Target Audience

This training is appropriate for FEMA award recipients and subrecipients, including state, local, tribal and territorial government personnel; nonprofit organization staff; eligible private entities; and other non-federal entities. This training is also appropriate for FEMA staff.

### Delivery Format

These virtual trainings will be delivered using Adobe Connect. In advance of a training, please test your connection here.

##  Additional Resources

View the full training schedule to see all the upcoming Procurement Under Grant learning opportunities.
                  - PDAT Resource Library
                  - PDAT Field Manual
                  - PDAT Contract Provisions Guide  
                  - Roadmap to Procurement Compliance
                  -   State Entity Fact Sheet  
                  - Emergency and Exigency Fact Sheet
                  - Common Mistakes to Avoid for Non-State Entities Fact Sheet
                  - Prepare Before a Disaster Fact Sheet

Last updated January 8, 2024

Return to top
No. 61156.

protests 144817-K, etc. (New York).

#### F. W. Woolworth Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of miniature metal figures, such as dogs, horses, and other animals, carts, wheelbarrows, and men, women, and boys, shown as handling different tools and objects and engaged in different enterprises, the same in all material respects as the merchandise the subject of *United States*v. *F. W. Woolworth Co.*(28 C. C. P. A. 196, C. A. D. 145) and that the items in question are composed in chief value of lead, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, nor colored with gold lacquer. On the agreed facts and following the cited decision, the articles in question were held properly classified under the provision in paragraph 397, as modified, for articles, not specially provided for, composed in chief value of lead, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, or colored with gold lacquer, dutiable as follows: (1) Those entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, prior to January 1, 1948, at 3 cents per pound, but not less than 22)4 percent nor more than 45 percent ad valorem, under paragraph 397, as modified by T. D. 49753; (2) those entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, between January 1, 1948, and June 6, 1951, at 2 cents per pound, but not less than 15 percent nor more than 45 percent ad valorem, under said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 51802; and (3) those entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, subsequent to June 6, 1951, at 2 cents per pound, but not less than 15 *406percent nor more than 30 percent ad valorem, under said paragraph, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52820).
EXHIBIT 23.1



                         Consent of Independent Auditors
                         -------------------------------


We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the
Registration Statement on Form S-3 and related Prospectus of Penn Engineering &
Manufacturing Corp. for the registration of 1,000,000 shares of its Common Stock
and to the incorporation by reference therein of our report dated January 26,
2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Penn Engineering
& Manufacturing Corp. incorporated by reference in its Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 2000, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.




                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
November 13, 2001


<PAGE>
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

RONNIE L. CRUICKSHANK,

Defendant. ____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-246M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offenses charged:

Count 1: Manufacture of Methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)

and 841(b)(1)(B).

Date of Detention Hearing: May 25, 2006.

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth,

finds the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Defendant has an extensive criminal background history, including failures to

appear.

(2) Defendant history reveals violations of prior court orders, indicating an

inability or unwillingness to comply with the terms of his supervision.

(3) At the time of defendant’s arrest, there was the presence of firearms.

Case 2:06-cr-00230-RSL Document 8 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

(4) Defendant is associated with nine alias names, three social security numbers,

and two dates of birth.

(5) There appear to be no conditions or combination of conditions other than

detention that will reasonably address the risk of flight and danger to other persons or the

community.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the

extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in

custody pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation

with counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which

defendant is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal

for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United

States Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 26th day of May, 2006.AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cr-00230-RSL Document 8 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 2
SAT (concerns) (02/21/2014):

Analogs: Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Migration to groundwater: Hyd Pdt moderate

PBT rating: P1B1T1 // PMN: P1B1T1 // Hyd Pdt: P1B1T1

Health: 1

- 2 Drinking Water, Inhalation, ingestion

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 5 ppb), XB Testing (Testing

desired)OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 0

- 1

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:Generated by the 09/30/2013 version of ChemSTEER.POLLUTIO N PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

P2 Claim (ICB): The substance is composed of ca. 66% bio

- based

feedstocks. P2REC

- DR: CRSS: drop (not novel).

EXPOSURE

- BASED REVIEW: Yes (0 criteria met)

1) # of workers exposed: 48 >1000? No

2) > 100 workers with >10 mg/day inhalation exposure: No

3) (a) >100 workers w/1

- 10 mg/day inh. exp. & >100 days/yr: No

(b) Routine Dermal Cont: >250 workers & >100 days/yr: NoINITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 14

- 0324INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 14

- 0324INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 14

- 0324CALL BY:

CALL TO:

Organization:

Date:

Time:

PMN: 14

- 0324 Organization:

Phone:

Concerning what? CBI: No

MEMORANDUM of TELEPHONE CONVERSATION (Contains No TSCA CBI)
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 132 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 132

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct popular 
   election of the President and Vice President of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 8, 2000

Mr. Green of Texas introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct popular 
   election of the President and Vice President of the United States.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. The President and Vice President shall be elected by 
the people of the several States and the district constituting the seat 
of government of the United States.
    ``Section 2. The electors in each State shall have the 
qualifications requisite for electors of Senators and Representatives 
in Congress from that State, except that the legislature of any State 
may prescribe less restrictive qualifications with respect to residence 
and Congress may establish uniform residence and age qualifications.
    ``Section 3. The persons having the greatest number of votes for 
President and Vice President shall be elected.
    ``Section 4. Each elector shall cast a single vote jointly 
applicable to President and Vice President. Names of candidates may not 
be joined unless they shall have consented thereto and no candidate may 
consent to the candidate's name being joined with that of more than one 
other person.
    ``Section 5. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the 
death of any candidate for President or Vice President before the day 
on which the President-elect or Vice President-elect has been chosen, 
and for the case of a tie in any election.
    ``Section 6. This article shall apply with respect to any election 
for President and Vice President held after the expiration of the 1-
year period which begins on the date of the ratification of this 
article.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 64699.

#### Berberian Bros. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 14371-K, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 23

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



The Stockholders and Board of Directors
Interactive Flight Technologies, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-15767 on Form S-8) of Interactive Flight Technologies, Inc. of our report
dated December 17, 1997, relating to the balance sheets of Interactive Flight
Technologies, Inc. as of October 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related statements
of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
two-year period ended October 31, 1997, which report appears in the October 31,
1997 annual report on Form 10-KSB of Interactive Flight Technologies, Inc.

                                                           KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Phoenix, Arizona
January 23, 1998
No. 63497.

protests 58/17254 and 58/22583 (New York).

#### Kaiser-Reismann Corp. *v.*United States,

*396Opinion by

Ford, *J.*

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic filaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Empire Brushes, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 2078), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IA

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 105

To disapprove the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency

on July 13, 2000, relating to total maximum daily loads under the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 18, 2000

Mr. BERRY (for himself, Mr. PICKERING, Mr. SKEEN, Mr. SANDLIN, Mr.

TURNER, Mr. BONILLA, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. BAKER, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr.

JONES of North Carolina, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. THUNE, Mr. DEAL of

Georgia, Mr. KNOLLENBERG, Mr. RILEY, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. SHOWS, Mr.

HAYES, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. BLUNT, and Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota)

introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

JOINT RESOLUTION

To disapprove the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency on July 13, 2000, relating to total maximum daily loads under the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the En4 vironmental Protection Agency on July 13, 2000 (volume

5 65, number 135, page 43586 of the Federal Register), re6 lating to total maximum daily loads under the Federal
2

•HJ 105 IH

1 Water Pollution Control Act, and such rule shall have no

2 force or effect.

Æ
J

- A27024

- 23

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
AVAIL HOLDING LLC

Appellant

v.

RONALD C. HELTON : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 639 MDA 2023 Appeal from the Order Entered March 2 7 , 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Civil Division at No(s): 22

- 1370

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. * JUDGMENT ORDER BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED: APRIL 2, 2024 Appellant Avail Holding LLC appeals from the order granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of Appellee Ronald C. Helton in the underlying mortgage foreclosure action . Appellant argues that the trial court erred in concluding that Appellant ’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations . We quash

. The relevant facts and procedural history of this matter are well known to the parties. See Trial Ct. Op., 7/20/23, at 1

- 2. Briefly, on May 24, 2001, Appellee and a third

- party , Alliance F unding , entered into a mortgage agreement

. The mortgage was purportedly assigned to Appellant on June 3,
2020. On July 7, 2022, Appellant filed a complaint alleging that Appellee defaulted on all outstanding mortgage payments after March 1, 2004.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.J

- A27024

- 23

- 2

-

Appellee filed an answer and new matter raising the statute of limitation s as

an affirmative defense. In its reply, Appellant argu ed that the applicable statute of limitations i n a mortgage foreclosure action is twenty years. Appellee filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings , and Appellant filed a response and brief in opposition to Appellee’s motion

. T he trial court held a hearing at which Appellee argued that Appellant had failed to attach a copy of the mortgage agreement to its complaint , and therefore, the re was no indication in the pleadings that the mortgage was under seal. As such, Appellee argued that the applicable statute of limitations was four years and barred Appellant’s claim. On March 24, 2023, the trial court granted Appellee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings

. See id. at 1

- 3

. Although the order granting judgment on the pleadings was filed on March 24, 2023, the trial court did not provide notice of the order until March 27, 2023. See Pa.R.C.P. 236. Therefore, Appellant had until April 26, 2023 , thirty days from March 27, 2 023 , in which to file a timely appeal. See
Pa.R.A.P. 903 (a)

. However, Appellant did not file the appeal until the thirty

first day, April 27, 2023. By failing to file a timely notice of appeal, we lack jurisdiction and are constrained to quash the appeal

. See Morningstar v. Hoban , 819 A.2d 1191, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2003) (explaining that this Court lack s jurisdiction to consider the merits of an untimely appeal.). Appeal quashed.J

- A27024

- 23

- 3

-

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 0 4 / 0 2/202 4
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 Annual Report of Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary C. Evans, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, 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 results of operations of the Company.





March 15, 2011
/s/ Gary C. EvansGary C. EvansChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
Before the First Division,

December 17, 1962

No. 67270.

protests 60/25155, etc. (San Diego).

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In 'accordance with stipulation of' counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 66671.

#### Union Brokerage Co. *v.*United States,

protests 60/19776, etc. (Pembina).

*407Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of deeharaeterized horsemeat, fresh, chilled, or frozen, similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 66254, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 December 23, 2014

s1217

Order 

Clerk

December 23, 2014

150206

JENNY N. GLAUBIUS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150206

COA: 318750

Macomb CC Family Division:

2012-004307-DM

JOHN A. GLAUBIUS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 15, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall 

include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether the defendant was merely the 

“presumed father” of the minor child, see MCL 722.1433(4), or whether he was the 

“affiliated father,” see MCL 722.1433(2), due to certain aspects of the parties’ divorce 

judgment – provisions that “t[ook] as confessed” the complaint allegation that the parties 

had had one child, that referred to the parties as mother and father, and that provided for 

child custody and visitation; (2) whether the plaintiff lacked a remedy under the 

Revocation of Paternity Act, MCL 722.1431 et seq., for the reason that the divorce 

judgment precluded her effort to obtain a determination under MCL 722.1441(1)(a) that 

the minor child was born out of wedlock; and (3) whether the alleged paternity 

determination in the judgment of divorce was res judicata as to the question of the 

identity of the child’s legal father.

The Children’s Law and Family Law Sections of the State Bar of Michigan and 

the University of Michigan Law School Child Welfare Appellate Clinic are invited to file 

briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the 

issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus 

curiae.

VIVIANO, J., not participating due to a familial relationship with the presiding 

circuit court judge in this case.