alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 56 (Friday, March 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5381]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Florida Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a briefing and planning meeting of 
the Florida Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
will convene at 1 p.m. and adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 17, 
2007, at the Hyatt Regency Tampa, Two Tampa City Center, Tampa, 
Florida, 33602. The purpose of these meetings is for the Committee to 
receive two briefings and to plan its activities regarding its project 
on the restoration of voting rights for ex-felons. The first briefing 
will be on religious freedom for prisoners, and the second briefing 
will be on voting rights for ex-felons.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The 
comments must be received in the regional office by May 17, 2007. The 
address is 61 Forsyth St., SW., Suite 1840T, Atlanta, GA 30303. Persons 
wishing to e-mail their comments, or to present their comments verbally 
at the meeting, or who are seeking additional information should 
contact Peter Minarik, Regional Director, Southern Regional Office, 
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights at 404-562-7000, (or for the hearing 
impaired TDD 202-376-8116), or by e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4d3d2024232c3f24260d383e2e2e3f632a223b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3848555156594a5153784d4b5b5b4a165f574e">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional 
Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the 
meeting.
    Records generated from these meetings may be inspected and 
reproduced at the Southern Regional Office, as they become available, 
both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of 
this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, 
http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact Peter Minarik at the above address 
or e-mail.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated at Washington, DC, March 19, 2007.
Ivy Davis,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
 [FR Doc. E7-5381 Filed 3-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

126 CA 13-00316 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF DARYL KNICKERBOCKER, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V ORDER

BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (LEAH R. NOWOTARSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (FRANK BRADY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered September 20, 2012 in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The judgment denied the petition.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs ( see Matter of Robles v Evans , 100 AD3d 1455, 1455).

Entered: February 7, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2013 (the “Report”) of TICC Capital Corp. (the “Registrant”),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Patrick F. Conroy, the Chief Financial Officer of the
Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/ s / Patrick
        F. Conroy                  
|-------------------------------------------------
|Name: Patrick F. Conroy
        Date: May 9, 2013
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J I AN YU AN Z HE N, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 72906 A ge nc yN o. A 044- 195- 740 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T A L L M A N , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J i an Y uan Z he n, ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of C hi na , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o reopen r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs ba s e d on i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t anc e of

c ouns e l . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the de ni a l of 

# FI LED OC T 26 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 72906 2 am o tio n to r e o p e n . I

tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 3 2 1 F .3 d8 8 9 , 8 9 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . W e d e n yth e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w . T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g Z h e n ’s th ir dm o tio n to r e ope n be c aus e the m ot i on w a s f i l e d m or e than s i x y e ar s a f t e rthe B I A ’ s M ar c h 12, 2 0 0 3 , o r d e r , se e 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (2) ( m ot i on t o reopen m ustgeneral l y be f i l ed w ith in 9 0 d ay s o f

th e f in a l o r d e r ) , an dZ h e n f

a ile dto e s tab lis h th a t h e a c te dw ith th e du e d ilig e n c e r e q u ir e df o re q u itab le to llin g , se e I tu rr ib a rr ia , 321 F . 3d a t894 ( de a dl i ne c an be e qui t abl e t ol l e d “ w he n ape t i t i one ri s pr e ve nt e d f r om f i l i ng be c aus e of

de c e pt i on, f

r aud, ore rr or , a s l ong a s the pe t i t i one ra c t s w i th due d ilig e n c e ” ) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
#### Sarah M. Crocker, *as Executrix, etc., Respondent, v.*Emmerson S. Eddy, *Appellant.*

Judgment affirmed.
No. 49736.

#### Protests 105170-K, etc., of Lippmann Produce Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The court ordered the protests submitted. An examination of the record failed to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome- the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action. The protests were overruled, excepting protest 105125-K (A) which was dismissed as untimely.
No. 41809.

#### Protest 80889-G of Salem Shawiry (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the record it was found certain items consist of Normandy laces similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Amrein*(26 C. C. P. A. 353, C. A. D. 40). The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 .was therefore sustained.
(November 28, 1995)

#### Dennis A. Herman, Respondent, v Martin A. Greenberg, Appellant, et al., Defendants. (And Another Action.)

[634 NYS2d 99]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about June 23, 1994, which dismissed defendant-appellant’s counterclaim for tortious interference with contract, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeals from orders of the same court and Justice entered on or about May 26 and June 24, 1994, unanimously dismissed as abandoned, and taken from a nonappealable paper, respectively, without costs.

There is no merit to defendant Greenberg’s contention that the IAS Court either abused its discretion or deprived him of his right to due process by, during trial, dismissing his counterclaim for tortious interference with contract. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action may be entertained at any time (CPLR 3211 [e]; *Quigley v City of Oswego,*71 AD2d 795, *lv denied*48 NY2d 607), and a decision thereon need not be reserved until after the proponent of the cause of action presents evidence to the jury, provided an adequate opportunity to argue in opposition to the motion is accorded *(see, Wright v Ford Motor Co.,*Ill AD2d 810). While on such a motion the facts pleaded are presumed to be true and given every favorable inference, bare legal conclusions and factual claims that either inherently incredible or flatly contradicted by documentary evidence are not entitled to such consideration *(Franklin v Winard,*199 AD2d 220). Applying that principle here, we find that the IAS Court correctly found that plaintiffs’ offer of proof supplementing the pleading was insufficient, failing to establish the elements of a claim for tortious interference with contract *(see, Artwear, Inc. v Hughes,*202 AD2d 76, 85). Despite the passage of almost a decade, defendant-appellant’s claim that the third party cancelled the contract because of the improper meddling of plaintiff is supported only by unsubstantiated allegations and by assertions that are flatly contradicted by documentary evidence. We have considered defendant Greenberg’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.
#### John Reed, *Appellant and Respondent, v.*George McConnell and Walter L. Gardner, *Appellants and*Respondents.

Reargument ordered. Bookes, J., not acting.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Ian T. Bothwell, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Rio Vista Energy Partners L.P; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) for the registrantand have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors: a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date:  November 19, 2007 /s/  Ian T. Bothwell   Ian T. Bothwell   Acting President and Acting ChiefExecutive Officer (Principal ExecutiveOfficer) of Rio Vista GP LLC, thegeneral partner of Rio Vista EnergyPartners L.P.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellant v PATRICK CONDRON, Sergeant, U. S. Army, Appellee

19 USCMA 216, 41 CMR 216

No. 20,414

February 13, 1970

*Captain Benjamin G. Porter*argued the cause for Appellant, United States. With him on the brief were *Colonel David T. Bryant, Major Edwin P. Wasinger,*and *Captain David K. Fromme.*

*217
      *Captain Thomas R. Maher*argued the cause for Appellee, Accused. With him on the brief was *Colonel Daniel T. Ghent.*

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 67(b)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 867, the Judge Advocate General of the Army certified the record of trial to this Court for review of the following question:

> Was the board of review correct in its determination that failure to transmit the ease for rehearing to the convening authority who originally referred the case to trial resulted in jurisdictional error thereby rendering the rehearing proceedings null and void?

We considered the same question in United States v Martin, 19 USCMA 211, 41 CMR 211 (1970). We determined that when an appellate court directs rehearing of a case it is not jurisdictional error for the Judge Advocate General to refer it to a convening authority other than the one who convened the court-martial that originally tried the accused. Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the negative.

The decision of the board of review is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for submission to the Court of Military Review for further consideration.

Judge Darden concurs.

Ferguson, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent.

Since I believe that the failure to transmit this case for rehearing to the convening authority who originally referred the case to trial resulted in jurisdictional error, thereby rendering the rehearing proceedings null and void (see my separate opinion in United States v Martin, 19 USCMA 211, 41 CMR 211 (1970)), I would answer the certified question in the affirmative and hold that the board of review was correct in finding jurisdictional error in this case.
No. 50529.

#### Protests 46363-K, etc., of Dean & Kite Co. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial it was established that the articles consist of oatmeal saucers and fruit saucers the same in all material respects as the merchandise the subject of *Copeland & Thompson*v. *United States*(12 Cust. Ct. 85, C. D. 833), which record was admitted in evidence herein. The classification of fruit saucers was not at issue in that case for the reason that the collector had properly classified fruit saucers in accordance with the terms of the trade agreement. In view of the record before the court it was held that the oatmeal saucers and fruit saucers in question were properly dutiable as claimed.
#### Stafford P. Cruikshank, *Respondent, v.*Willett Bronson, *Apellant.*

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by Daniels, J.
Arlington • Bedford • Carrollton • Dallas • Fort Worth (Hulen) • Fort Worth (Main St.) • Fort Worth (Summit) • Sa n Antonio

Midland/Odessa • Houston/Clear Lake • Plano • Grand Prairie • Mesquite • Texarkana • Weatherford

1300 Summit Avenue, Suite 650, Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Tel: (817) 276-6000 Fax: (817) 276-6010

December 12, 2017

Court of Appeals Second District of Texas

Attn: Court Coordinator

RE: Christi Schreiber, et al vs. Board of Adjustment of the City of Fort Worth, et al

Court of Appeals Number: 02-17-00107- CV

Trial Court Case Number: 153-284091-16

Dear Court Coordinator:

Please be advised that I have set aside the following dates for vacation and request that no

hearings, trials or other matters be set on these dates in the above cause:

December 2 5, 2017 – January 12, 2018

Thank you for your attention in this matter. By copy of this letter I am notifying all

counsel of this request.

Sincerely,

Michael Handy

MH/mgr ACCEPTED

02-17-00107-CV

SECOND COURT OF APPEALS

FORT WORTH, TEXAS

12/12/2017 3:02 PM

DEBRA SPISAK

CLERK
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 193 (Monday, October 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 60157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23816]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9917-47-Region-9]

Strategic Sciences Removal Site, Sylmar, CA; Notice of Proposed 
CERCLA Settlement Agreement for Recovery of Response Costs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as 
amended (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a 
proposed administrative settlement with two parties for recovery of 
response costs concerning the Strategic Sciences Superfund Site in 
Sylmar, California. The settlement is entered into pursuant to Section 
122(h)(1) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(h)(1), and it requires the settling 
party to pay $40,000 to the United States Environmental Protection 
Agency (Agency). The settlement includes a covenant not to sue the 
settling party pursuant to Sections 106 or 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 
9606 or 9607(a). For thirty (30) days following the date of publication 
of this Notice in the Federal Register, the Agency will receive written 
comments relating to the settlement. The Agency will consider all 
comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the 
settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which 
indicate the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or 
inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be 
available for public inspection at 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 
CA 94105.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 5, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection 
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. A 
copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from J. Andrew 
Helmlinger, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, ORC-3, San Francisco, 
CA 94105, telephone number 415-972-3904. Comments should reference the 
Strategic Sciences Superfund Site, Sylmar, California, and should be 
addressed to J. Andrew Helmlinger at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. Andrew Helmlinger, Assistant 
Regional Counsel (ORC-3), Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA Region 
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; phone: (415) 972-
3904; fax: (417) 947-3570; email: helmlinger.andrew@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Respondent to the Proposed Settlement: K&W 
Properties, Inc.

    Dated: September 25, 2014.
Enrique Manzanilla,
Director, Superfund Division, U.S. EPA, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014-23816 Filed 10-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
Before the Third Division,

December 20, 1940

No. 45015.

#### Protest 976755-G of Eurasia Import Co. (New York).

Evans, Judge:

This is an action against the United States in which the plaintiff seeks redress from the action of the collector of customs in refusing delivery of merchandise on the ground that the same had been seized by a special agent of the Bureau of Customs. It was originally decided September 13, 1939, in an opinion reported in *Eurasia Import Co.*v. *United States,*3 Cust. Ct. 106, C. D. 213. Our conclusion there was that the protest should be dismissed and we granted the Government’s motion to that effect.

Since the rehearing was granted there have been sundry developments which necessitate a reconsideration of the case.

It appears that the protest was formally abandoned in writing by plaintiff’s attorney and the abandonment filed in the office of the clerk of the court on August 18, 1939. However, through inadvertence this abandonment was not brought to the attention of the division of the court having jurisdiction of the' subject matter nor to the attention of the presiding judge of the court until after the decision above referred to. Said abandonment, however, is a part of the' record now before us and it is our duty to pass on it. We find that plaintiff’s attorney had full power to execute the same and that he did so in obedience to a direct command from his client, who in turn was moved to act as he did because he had effected a compromise with the collector of customs or the Treasury Department whereby he obtained possession of his goods. Obviously this arrange-' ment of the importer with the Government has made the question sought to' be raised by the protest a moot one, and we do not decide moot questions.

Because the protest has been formally abandoned and because the question is now moot, we direct that a formal order of dismissal be entered.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly. It is so ordered.
#### William H. Dodd, *Respondent, v.*Joseph Dodd, *as Executor, etc., Appellant.*

Part of order appealed from reversed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.