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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 485 

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 

Act to authorize the President to provide hazard mitigation assistance 

for mitigating and preventing post-wildfire flooding and debris flow, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2023 

Mr. PADILLA (for himself and Mr. SULLIVAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to authorize the President to provide hazard mitigation assistance for mitigating and preventing post-wildfire flooding and debris flow, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hazard and Flooding 

5 Mitigation Funding Assurance Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 485 IS

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO IMPROVE HAZARD MITIGATION 

2 ASSISTANCE. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 404 of the Robert T. 

4 Stafford Disaster Relief And Emergency Assistance Act 

5 (42 U.S.C. 5170c) is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘The Presi7 dent may contribute up to 75 percent of the cost’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘The President shall contribute not 

9 less than 75 percent of the cost and may contribute 

10 not more than 100 percent of the cost’’; and 

11 (2) in subsection (f)— 

12 (A) in paragraph (13), by striking ‘‘and’’ 

13 at the end; 

14 (B) in paragraph (14), by striking the pe15 riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

16 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

17 ‘‘(15) mitigating post-wildfire flooding and de18 bris flow from burn scars.’’. 

19 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendments made by sub20 section (a) shall apply with respect to assistance provided 

21 under section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Re22 lief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c) on 

23 or after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
No. 75-6853.

#### Browne *v.*Massachusetts.

Appeal from Dist. Ct., E. Middlesex County, Mass., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. *Costarelli*v. *Massachusetts,*421 U. S. 193 (1975).
**Exhibit31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I,Gary J.G. Atkinson, Chief Financial Officer certify that: 

 

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-QSB of Lpath, Inc. (the “Registrant”);

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport.

 

4.             The Registrant’s other certifying officersand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theRegistrant and have:

 

a)     Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theRegistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of theRegistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)     Disclosed in this report any change in theRegistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theRegistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.             The Registrant’s other certifying officersand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)   All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theRegistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  May 12, 2006 | By:    | /s/  Gary J. G. Atkinson |   |
|---------------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|                |   | Gary  J. G. Atkinson     |
|                |   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY L. PATTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1893 FCD PAN P

vs.

R.S. JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file and serve an opposition to the

defendants’ July 24, 2006 motion to dismiss. Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s request will be

granted. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's August 16, 2006 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and

serve an opposition to the defendants’ July 24, 2006 motion to dismiss. Defendants' reply, if any,

shall be filed seven days thereafter.

DATED: August 28, 2006.

14/bb/patt1893.36 

Case 2:04-cv-01893-FCD-EFB Document 36 Filed 08/30/06 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LISA COFFRON, et al.,

NO. CIV. S-04-2669 FCD/GGH

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND

DISPOSITION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant.

____________________________________/

Pursuant to the representations of counsel for the defendant in the above action the court

has determined that this case has settled. 

In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 160, dispositional documents are to be

filed on or before June 27, 2005. All dates set in this matter are hereby VACATED.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY BE GROUNDS FOR THE

IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS ON ANY AND ALL COUNSEL AS WELL AS ANY

PARTY OR PARTIES WHO CAUSE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02669-FCD-GGH Document 14 Filed 05/18/05 Page 1 of 1
#### George J. Desh, *Respondent, v.*Oliver W. Barnes, *Appellant,*Impleaded, etc.

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to respondent to abide event. Opinion by

Davis, P. J.
Exhibit
32.2





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 m-Wise, Inc. ("the Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Gabriel Kabazo, Chief
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 my
knowledge:





(1)  the Report fully
comply 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 operations of the Company.





/s/ Gabriel KabazoGabriel
      Kabazo, Chief Financial
Officer





Dated:
August 14, 2009
SCALE 1:24,000

MONSON QUADRANGLE

1 0.5 0 1 MILE

1 0.5 0 1 KILOMETER

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Prepared in cooperation with the OPEN-FILE REPORT 2006-1260-I

Explanatory pamphlet accompanies map

Surficial Geologic Map of the Monson Quadrangle, Massachusetts

Compiled by Janet R. Stone

2013

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 1967.

Map was scanned, processed, georeferenced,

rectified, and cropped by the Massachusetts

Geological Survey.

Map units were reproduced from Peper (1977).

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

(SHEET 21 of 24)

(HA

M

P

D

E

N)

(WALE

S)

(PALMER)

72°15'0"W

72°15'0"W

72°22'30"W

72°22'30"W

42°7'30"N

42°7'30"N

42°0'0"N

42°0'0"N

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MASSACHUSETTS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

AND OFFICE OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION (MassGIS),

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION

Stone, J.R., compiler, 2013, Surficial geologic map

of the Mount Grace-Ashburnham-Monson-Webster

24-quadrangle area in central Massachusetts:

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1260-I

Available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1260/I.
July 1, 2015

Mr. Joshua West

3305 Pebble Beach Drive

Apartment 6

Conway, AR 72034

Dear Mr. West:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

part 21 Subpart H; §§ 61.113(a) and (b); 61.23(a), 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your request and what you should 

do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA−2015−1327), but we are 

unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with 

the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you 

must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Morene, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 202]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feinberg, J.), rendered March 3, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence adduced at the trial in a light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 *377AD2d 86, 88). We find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Notably, the fact that one of the People’s witnesses testified pursuant to a plea agreement did not render his testimony incredible *(see, People v Royall,*172 AD2d 703).

Additionally, the Court of Appeals has recently reaffirmed the general rule that pedigree information provided by the defendant to the police during processing is not subject to the notice requirements of CPL 710.30 *(see, People v Rodney,*85 NY2d 289; *see also, People v Perez,*198 AD2d 540; *People v Thomas,*195 AD2d 301; *People v Hester,*161 AD2d 665). Accordingly, the defendant’s pedigree statement was properly admitted despite the lack of notice.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.
No. 51749.

#### Protests 116364-K, etc., of V. P.Roberts & Co. et al. (Boston).

Cole, Judge:

*United States*v. *V. P. Roberts & Co.,*34 C. C. P. A. 135, C. A. D. 356, held that a transferee, having acquired imported merchandise pursuant to the provisions of section 557, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. § 1557), is vested with all statutory privileges and considerations, attendant with the right to file a protest, as those heldby the original importer, and that the time for such transferee to file a protest does not begin to run until exact duty liability on the transferred merchandise has been determined.

The record in the cited case was incorporated herein by consent of the parties with the concession that “the facts concerning the collector’s final ascertainment and liquidation of duties against the respective transferees, plaintiffs herein, are the same in all material respects as the facts in *United States*v. *V. P. Roberts & Co., supra.”*

An examination of the official papers before us discloses that the protests under consideration were filed within 60 days after’the collector’s decision, the final ascertainment of duties on the transferred merchandise. The cases are therefore timely, under the statutory construction enunciated in the *Roberts*case, *supra.*

In a written stipulation of submission', counsel agree that the merchandise represented by the invoice items marked “A” and checked “FEF,” to which the protests are limited, consists of wools, not sorted, substantially the same as those the subject of the *Roberts*case, *supra.*Accordingly, -we hold the said merchandise to be classifiable as follows: The wools assessed at 14 cents per pound are dutiable at 13 cents per pound as “not finer than 40s” under paragraph 1101 (a), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the trade agreements with Argentina (T. D. 50504) and Uruguay (T. D. 50786), and the wools assessed at 18 cents per pound are dutiable at 17 cents per pound as “not finer than 44s” under paragraph 1102 (a), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the said trade agreements.

To the extent indicated the protests are sustained and judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification of Periodic Financial Reports**     I, Robert J. Messey, Vice President of Arch Western Resources, LLC, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 (the“Periodic Report”) which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and     (2) information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Arch Western Resources, LLC.                                                       /s/ Robert J. Messey   Robert J. Messey   Vice President   Date: November 13, 2007
EXHIBIT 7

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 on Form 40-F of Sun Life Financial Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31,
2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his respective 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: February 14, 2013 |  |  |  |                                                     
|                        |  | 
|                        |  |  |  | /s/ Dean A. Connor                                
|                        |  |  |  | Dean A. Connor                                      
|                        |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer               
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: February 14, 2013 |  |  |  |                                                      |  | 
|                        |  | 
|                        |  |  |  | /S/ Colm J. Freyne                                
|                        |  |  |  | Colm J. Freyne                                      
|                        |  |  |  | Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer

This certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed to have been, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
No. 45008.

#### Protest 39125-K of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

*476Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of clothes brushes similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Heinrich Herrmann & Weiss*(26 C. C. P. A. 292, C. A. D. 30). The claim at 50 percent under paragraph 1506 was therefore sustained.
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

Order

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

KERRY LUGENE PARKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

GEORGE STRATTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:04-cv-02695-FCD-GGH (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS AN

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A

REPLY

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, Defendants have a one-week extension of time in

which to file a reply to Plaintiff’s Objection to Claims in Defendants Motion to Dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/24/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

HON. GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

United States Magistrate Judge

park2695.ext

Case 2:04-cv-02695-FCD-GGH Document 33 Filed 05/24/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 53035.

#### Henri Bendel, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 135473-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 12.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Wong Wai Kay, Ricky, certify that:

1. I
have reviewed this annual report of City Telecom (H.K.) Limited;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

4. The
companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and 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 the company, including its consolidated 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 the companys 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 the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud,
whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.



|                       |  |                         |  |                    
|---------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | -------------------
|Date: January 28, 2008 |  | /s/ Wong Wai Kay, Ricky
|                       |  | Name:                   |  | Wong Wai Kay, Ricky
|                       |  | Title:                  |  | Chairman
Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: “Revisions”

Meeting Documentation: Weyerhaeuser

Date Staff Contact 

Information (Name, 

email, phone #)

Name of 

Organization 

(Attach list of all 

attendees names 

and emails if 

possible) 

Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, 

reporting requirements, etc.)

Written 

Comments 

Provided?

Did they

also submit 

to Docket?

Date sent to

EPA- CCD

8/3/2010

Lisa Hanle

Hanle.Lisa@epa.gov

Weyerhaeuser 

sara.kendall@weyerha

euser.com, 

shari.brown@weyerha

euser.com, 

steve.woock@weyerha

euser.com

EPA provided the general background on proposed 

changes related to the reporting requirements for 

biogenic emissions. Specifically the proposal to all 

the option for separate reporting of biogenic 

emissions for units following Part 75 methods. 

Weyerhaeuser had a number of questions about the 

proposed changes and discussed concerns associated 

with the option to report biogenic emissions 

separately for all units using Part 75 methods. They 

expressed concern that EPA would be missing key 

data.

No written 

comments 

were submitted 

at meeting. 

They will 

provide written 

comments. 

8/5/10