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

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 118

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 24, 2000

Mr. YOUNG of Florida introduced the following joint resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Appropriations

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

2001, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That Public Law 106–275, is further amended by strik4 ing the date specified in section 106(c) and inserting

5 ‘‘October 29, 2000’’.

Æ
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

895 

KAH 15-00416 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK EX REL. 

RICHIE STOKES, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE AND MS. DOLCE, 

SUPERINTENDENT, ORLEANS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 

RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ALAN WILLIAMS OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATE H. NEPVEU OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court,

Orleans County (James P. Punch, A.J.), entered November 19, 2014 in a

habeas corpus proceeding. The judgment dismissed the petition. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a judgment dismissing his

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The appeal has been rendered

moot by petitioner’s release from custody upon reaching his maximum

expiration date (see People ex rel. Smith v Cully, 112 AD3d 1316,

1317, lv denied 22 NY3d 864; People ex rel. Reynolds v Artus, 103 AD3d

1208, 1208-1209; People ex rel. Baron v New York State Dept. of Corr.,

94 AD3d 1410, 1410, lv denied 19 NY3d 807), and the exception to the

mootness doctrine does not apply (see Reynolds, 103 AD3d at 1209;

Baron, 94 AD3d at 1410; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,

50 NY2d 707, 714-715). While this Court has the power to convert the

habeas corpus proceeding into a CPLR article 78 proceeding, we decline

to do so under the circumstances of this case (see People ex rel.

Walker v Dolce, 125 AD3d 1305, 1305, lv denied 25 NY3d 910; People ex

rel. Green v Smith, 119 AD3d 1451, 1452). 

Entered: November 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
**Exhibit 32.2(d)****CERTIFICATIONS(cont’d)****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 The GreenbrierCompanies, Inc. (the Company) onForm 10-K for theannual period ended August 31, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified(the Report), I, Joseph K. Wilsted, Senior Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 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.Date: October 31, 2006/s/ Joseph K. Wilsted Joseph K. WilstedSenior Vice President andChief Financial OfficerThe Greenbrier Companies 2006AnnualReport                                         71
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4734-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-4734-DR), dated August 31, 2023, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued September 3, 2023.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of August 31, 2023.

Pinellas County for Individual Assistance.

Pinellas County for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2023-23210 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
A89A1995.

#### GOODWIN v. GOODWIN et al.

(390 SE2d 247)

Decided January 2, 1990.

*Macklyn A. Smith,*for appellant.

*Barbara B. Bishop,*for appellees.

Pope, Judge.

Plaintiff/appellant Thomas A. Goodwin filed a petition pursuant to OCGA § 19-7-3 seeking visitation with his granddaughter, Amiriah Anna Huth, in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County. The trial court dismissed the petition on the grounds “that there are no actions pending to provide a basis for the plaintiff, ... to bring suit under the provisions of OCGA § 19-7-3. . . We reverse.

OCGA § 19-7-3 was amended effective July 1, 1988 to provide that “[a]ny grandparent shall have the right to file an *original action*for visitation rights . . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 19-7-3 (b). The petition here, which was filed March 13, 1989, was clearly within the purview of the amended statute. Consequently, the trial court erred in dismissing the action on the grounds that it could be maintained only if it was ancillary to an already pending action concerning the child.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Banke, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.*
<PAGE>   1

                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                       Consent of Independent Accountants


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement on Form S-8 of our report dated May 20, 1999 relating to the financial
statements, which appears in the 1999 Annual Report to Shareholders of Pentegra
Dental Group, Inc., which is incorporated by reference in the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 1999.


                                          PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


July 30, 1999
# L_2022046EN.01000101.xml

| 25.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 46/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 46/1

---

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2022/299

of 24 February 2022

implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (1), and in particular Article 32(1) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 18 January 2012, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 36/2012. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 18 January 2012, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.

| (2) | The entry for one deceased person should be deleted. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The entry for one deceased person should be deleted.

| (3) | Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 24 February 2022.

For the Council

The President

A. PANNIER-RUNACHER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 16, 19.1.2012, p. 1.

1

---

ANNEX

The following entry is deleted from the list set out in Section A (Persons) of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012:

| 32. | Mohammed Makhlouf. |
| --- | --- |

32.

Mohammed Makhlouf.

---
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASH I NGTON, D.C. 20460



# MlV -5

**20~**
Lanc eR. Le fl eu r , Director Alabama D epa rtm e nt of E nvironmental Management 1400 Co li se um Blvd Montgo mery , AL 36 1 30 -1 432 Dear Mr. L efle ur: OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

I am writing in response to your October 21, 2014 letter requ es tin g an ex te n s ion of the comment period for th e 35 1h Avenue site in Birmingham , AL. This site was prop osed for listing on the National P rior it ies List (N P L) on September 22, 2014 wit h a 60-day co mment peri od that was schedu led to end on Nove mb er 21, 2014. Your letter indicated that a 60-day extensio n of the co mm ent period i s needed in order f o r ADEM to ava i l itself of EPA ' s i ss ue resolution process outlined in EPA's " Coordinati ng wi th S tates on NP L Listing Decisions " policy. You also no ted that an extens ion will a ll ow all interes te d parties a more reaso n able a m oun t of t ime to ana l yze the extensive scientific d ata recent l y mad e available by E P A. E PA is givi n g ADEM, and all other interested parties, an additiona l 60 days to s ubmit comments related to the 35 1h Avenue site. All commenter s have until Janu ary 2 0 , 2 015 to submit comment s . EPA will consider all comments received by J anuary 20, 2 015. P lease use Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-20 14 -0623 for s ubmittal of your comment s via http: // www.re gulations.gov. You may ve rify receipt of comments by checking back on www.regu l at ion s .gov (p l ease allow a day or two for w eb posting). Sincerely,



# !t~

**to r**  O ffice of S uperfu nd Remed iat ion and T echnol ogy Innovation

lntemet Address (URL) • http : //www.epa
. gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer , Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
Befoee Judge *Lonlon,*

October 4, 1967

No. R67/109.

#### Hoyt, Shepston & Sciaroni, a/c Fred L. Waldron, Ltd. *v.*United States, reappraisement R61/20846 (San Francisco).

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *International Packers, Limited*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 636, Reap. Dec. 11147) and *International Packers, Limited*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 472, Reap. Dec. 10696), the court found and held that export value, as defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the canned corned beef exported from Argentina, during the period January 1, 1959, through December 31, 1959, and that such values per dozen tins, net packed, are the respective values shown as plaintiff’s claimed values on schedule “B,” for the respective products and sizes of container described on the invoices and as stated in the entry and recited in said schedule “B,” during that period which corresponds to the time of exportation of the canned corned beef covered by this appeal for reappraisement, said schedule “B,” being attached to and made a part of this decision.
Exhibit 31.1

                          CERTIFICATIONS

I, Scott Emerson Lybbert, certify that:

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

        2.   Based upon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain
any untrue statements 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 quarterly report;

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

        4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

               a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures toensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
being prepared;

               b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date
of this annual report (the Evaluation Date"); and

               c)   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

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

               a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for
the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

               b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal controls; and

        6.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated
in this annual report whether there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


     /s/ Scott Emerson Lybbert       Chief Executive Officer
    --------------------------
         Scott Emerson Lybbert        August 3, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 110 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.J.Res.110

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
             the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and 
                           for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 106-275 is 
amended by striking ``October 6, 2000'' in section 106(c) and inserting 
in lieu thereof ``October 14, 2000''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
No. 50807.

#### Protests 53276-K, etc., of T. D. Downing Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Case No. 8,931.

#### McVEIGH v. MESSERSMITH.

[5 Cranch, C. C. 316.]2

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Oct. Term, 1837.

Sale — Advertisement — Subsequent Examination — Caveat Emptor.

If a lot of bacon be advertised in the Gazette, by the vendor, as “prime,” and the vendee examine it. and afterwards agree to purchase it, and it proves to have been unsound, he cannot recover damages upon the warranty, although he should have paid a sound price for it.

Case, on warranty of a lot of bacon.

The plaintiff [William N. McVeigh] offered in evidence a printed advertisement in the Alexandria Gazette, of a lot of “prime bacon,” to be sold by the defendant [Samuel Messersmith] and that he paid for it the full price of sound bacon. The defendant offered evidence to prove that the plaintiff came to the warehouse of the defendant, and looked at the bacon as it hung, and, after examining it as much as he thought proper, agreed to take it. It was sent to his warehouse, and about a week afterwards he

gave his note for the amount upon which the defendant recovered judgment at law. The bacon was unsound at the time of sale.

Mr. Semmes, for defendant,

prayed the court to instruct the jury, in effect, that if there was no other warranty than that contained In the advertisement, and no fraud, and the plaintiff inspected the bacon before he purchased it, he cannot recover in this action. Calhoun v. Vecchio [Case No. 2,310].

Mr. Taylor, for plaintiff,

prayed the court to add to the instruction, the following: “That if they should believe, from the evidence, that the plaintiff did not- fully examine the bacon, and did not mean to rely on his examination, but to rely on the warranty in the advertisement, he did not waive the warranty.” Starkie, Ev. pt. 4. p. 1660; Bridge v. Wain, 1 Starkie, 504; Yates v. Pym, 6 Taunt. 446.

Mr. Semmes, in reply.

A representation of goods is no warranty. Caveat emptor. Seixas v. Woods, 2 N. Y. Term R. [2 Caines] 55; Chandelor v. Lopus (Case of Bezar Stone) Cro. Jac. 4; Jackson v. Wetherill, 7 Serg. & R. 480.

THE COURT

(CRANCH, Chief Judge, contra,)

gave the instruction asked by Mr. Semmes, and refused that asked by Mr. Taylor.

CRANCH, Chief Judge,

was of opinion that it ought to be left to the jury to say wbat was the extent and object of the plaintiff’s examination of the bacon, and whether he meant to rely upon that examination or upon the warranty.

Verdict for defendant.

Motion for new trial overruled.

CRANCH, Chief Judge, contra.
1 

### Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 9:46 AM

To: 'eric@integratower.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov' Subject: Petition for Exemption: In tegra Tower, LLC (FAA-2015-0327)



### May 28, 2015

Dear Mr. DeVersa:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-0327). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft make, mode l, and type (i.e. - fixed-wing, ro torcraft, lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description shoul d include the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Hea dquarters or electronically via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request a ny further, we must receive the information described above by June 11, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Nia Daniels Program Analyst

Nia Daniels, ARM

‐ 108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075 nia.daniels@faa.gov
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION BY THE SENIOR FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U. S. C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, I, David M. Mulder, hereby certify that,
to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Salton, Inc. on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and that the information contained in that Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Salton, Inc.

                                By: /s/ David M. Mulder
                                   -----------------------------------
                                David M. Mulder
                                Executive Vice President, Chief Administrative
                                Officer and Senior Financial Officer

November 12, 2004

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. (the Exchange Act). Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the
extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

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