alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Organic perspectives[electronic resource].**
 
1998:JunJulAugSepOctNovDec
1999:JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSep/OctNovDec
2000:JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNov
2001:MarMayJulOctNov
2002:MarAprMayJun/JulAug/SepOct/Nov/Dec
2003:Jan/FebMar/AprMay/JunJul/AugSep/OctNov/Dec
2004:Jan/FebMar/AprMay/JunJul/AugSep/OctNov/Dec
2005:Jan/FebMay/JunJul/AugNov/Dec
 
SuDoc Number:A 67.51:
Item Number:0077-B-02 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000533861
 
February 6, 2020
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 quarterly report of DayStar Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the Report), I, John R. Tuttle, President, and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 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: August 13, 2004



/s/ John R. TuttleJohn R. Tuttle, President andChief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.01

                  CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER &
                            CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Michael Pacult, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
White Oak Financial Services, Inc. as general partner of Providence Select
Fund, L.P., certify that (i) the Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008
of Providence Select Fund, L.P. fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information contained in the Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Providence Select Fund, L.P.


PROVIDENCE SELECT FUND, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By:	White Oak Financial Services, Inc., General Partner



By: /s/ Michael Pacult
Michael Pacult
Chief Executive Officer &
Chief Financial Officer

Date:	May 20, 2008

<page>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Lopez, Also Known as Carlos Gomez, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 787]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard *244Price, J.), rendered June 28,1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and possession of burglar’s tools, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of 2 to 4 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The People established that the stolen vehicle could not conceivably have had a value of $100 or less (Penal Law § 165.45 [5]). This was proven through the testimony of the owner as to the car’s condition, and the testimony of an expert appraiser who did not examine the car but consulted with the owner and recognized evaluation resources *(People v Rodriguez,*171 AD2d 419, *lv denied 78*NY2d 973). Since no reasonable view of the evidence could have supported a finding that the car had a value of less than $100, defendant’s request for a charge of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree as a lesser included offense was properly denied *(see, People v Cabassa,*79 NY2d 722, 728, *cert denied sub nom. Lind v New York,*506 US 1011; *People v Douglas,*194 AD2d 408, *lv denied*82 NY2d 717). We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unpreserved and without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.
#### Jacobus W. Hamel, *Appellant, v.*William Roth and others, *Respondents.*

—‘Part of the judgment holding the $2,000 mortfage free from usury affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Barnard, ’. J.; Cullen, J., not sitting. Upon the plaintiffs appeal from the judgment, holding the $6,000 and $8,000 mortgages void for usury, judgment reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by Barnard, P. J. ;

Cullen, J., not sitting.
No. 54749.

#### The L. Buchman Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 157944-K (B) and 157944-K (C) (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### Dorothea Rankert, *a Supposed Lunatic, Respondent, v.*Jacob Rankert, *as Committee, etc., Appellant.*

— Order appealed from affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, to be paid by the appellant personally.
|     |                                                                                                                       |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
| By     | /s/ Brook Taube |
|   | Brook Taube |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
| By     | /s/ Richard T. Allorto, Jr. |
|   | Richard T. Allorto, Jr. |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8569 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for a passenger motor vehicle or 

a personal driver for the chief executive officer of the Metropolitan 

Transportation Authority. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 24, 2024 

Mr. GOTTHEIMER (for himself and Mr. D’ESPOSITO) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for a passenger motor 

vehicle or a personal driver for the chief executive officer 

of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 

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 ‘‘No Private Rides Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8569 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN USES OF FEDERAL 

2 FUNDS FOR CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF 

3 THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AU4 THORITY. 

5 No Federal funds may be used to provide the chief 

6 executive officer of the Metropolitan Transportation Au7 thority a passenger motor vehicle or a personal driver. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### Garret C. Ryckman, *Respondent, v.*George S. Riley, *Appellant.*

— Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### Ann Kenney, *Respondent, v.*The City of Cohoes, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, wifh costs. Opinion by Learned,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION Ill 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029
Mr. David K. Paylor, Director Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 629 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 232
. 19


# ,.**De~~~** Dear Mr. aylor : By letter and enclosures dated June 14, 2013, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) an annual ambient air monitoring network plan in accordance with the regulatory requirements of 40 CFR Part 58 -Ambient Air Quality Surveillance. Based on our review, EPA partially approves VADEQ's June 14,2013 annual ambient air monitoring network plan on the basis that the plan meets the requirements of 40 CFR Part 58.10
. Additionally, 40 CFR Section 58.11 (c) requires any changes to the air monitoring network or design of the following air monitoring systems be approved by the EPA Administrator: a) Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Systems (PAMS) b) Particulate Matter Speciation Trends Network (STN) c) The National Core Monitoring Network (NCore) EPA determined that VADEQ's June 14,2013 annual ambient air monitoring network plan requires a separate approval from the EPA Administrator because ofthe discontinuation of the Corbin PAMS monitoring site
. As such, VADEQ's 2013 monitoring network plan has been forwarded to EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to complete the approval process. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me or have your staff contact Mr. Matt Colip, EPA's Virginia Liaison, at (215) 814-5439
. For questions regarding this approval action, your staff may contact Ms. Diana Esher, Director, Air Protection Division, at (215) 814-2706.

cc: Mr
. Mike Dowd, VADEQ Sincerely,

# A1~~-~~1**11~** ..- Shawn M
. Garvin Regional Administrator



# ,. '·J Printed on 100% recycled /recyclable paper with 100 %post-consumer fiber andprocess cl!lorinefree. Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

         CONCORD  INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. a corporation organized and existing
under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

         FIRST:  That  at a  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  CONCORD
INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed
amendment of the Certificate of  Incorporation  of said  corporation,  declaring
said amendment to be advisable and calling a meeting of the stockholders of said
corporation for consideration thereof. The resolution setting forth the proposed
amendment is as follows:

         RESOLVED,  that the Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation be
         amended by changing the Article thereof numbered "THE FOURTH:" so that,
         as amended said Article shall be and read as follows;

         The amount of total authorized  capital stock of the corporation  shall
         be divided into 50,000,000 shares of common stock having a par value of
         $.0001 each,  and  10,000,000  shares of  preferred  stock having a par
         value of $.0001 each. All  outstanding  common stock as of the close of
         business  on June 17, 1997 shall be changed  and  reclassified  so that
         each share of common stock  outstanding  shall be equal to one-fiftieth
         of a share of common stock as of the effective date of this  amendment.
         All fractional shares shall be rounded up to the nearest whole share.

         SECOND:  That  thereafter,  pursuant  to  resolution  of its  Board  of
Directors,  a special meeting of the  stockholders of said  corporation was duly
called and held,  upon  notice in  accordance  with  Section  222 of the General
Corporation  law of the State of Delaware at which meeting the necessary  number
of shares as required by statute were voted in favor of the amendment.

         THIRD:  That said  amendment  was duly adopted in  accordance  with the
provisions  of  Section  242 of the  General  Corporation  Law of the  State  of
Delaware.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  said CONCORD  INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. has caused
this certificate to be signed by an authorized  officer,  this eighteenth day of
June, 1997.


                                  By:  HENRY VAL
                                       ---------------------------------------
                                       Mr. Henry Val, President
Before the Second Division,

May 16, 1958

No. 61941.

#### Charles A. Redden, Inc., and Pedigree Seed Co. *v.*United States,

protest 289656-K (New York).

*555Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of 500 cotton bags, containing Timothy seed, which are the usual coverings or containers for said seed, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
May 20, 1960

No. 64247.

protest 308935-K.

#### Chester K. Stoner *v.*United States,

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
#### Henry E. Dunham, *Respondent, v.*George S. Hayden, *Appellant.*

— Judgment of County Court affirmed.
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 Highland Hospitality Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas W. Vicari, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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.



Date: November 8, 2005



/s/ Douglas W. VicariExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
AFS-11-282-E 

June 30, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10306 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0421 

Mr. James Nides 

SOC Project Manager 

Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc. 

17445 JFK Boulevard 

Houston, TX 77302 

Dear Mr. Nides: 

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our 

decision and explains its basis. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated April 19, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc.(ASA), for an exemption from § 121.163(a), (b), 

and (c) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow 

ASA to combine its operating certificate with ExpressJet Airlines’ (ExpressJet) operating 

certificate without completing aircraft proving tests as prescribed by § 121.163. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because this is not a precedent-setting petition, and any delay in acting 

on this petition would be detrimental to ASA. 

The FAA recently issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material 

respects to those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 10254 (copy 

enclosed), the FAA found that the petitioner’s request for relief from § 121.163(a), (b), and 

(c) had not shown how an equivalent level of safety would be provided if proving runs were 

not conducted. The FAA was unable to verify the petitioner’s statement regarding grants of 

exemption to the other carriers in those merger situations cited and could find no evidence 

that any similar exemptions were granted to these carriers in past mergers. 
2 

The FAA agreed that this merger was being performed under Operations Specification A502. 

 Section one of the Operations Specification states, “Inherent in the implementation of the 

United-Continental Bridging Manual and Transition Plan was the air carriers’ responsibility 

to ensure regulatory compliance and provide the public with the highest possible level of 

safety in air transportation.” Reducing the proving flights without any approved plan did not 

provide the public with the highest possible level of safety in air transportation and was, 

therefore, not in the public interest. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed Denial 

of Exemption No. 10254; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 10254 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby deny the petition of Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc., for an 

exemption from 14 CFR § 121.163. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John W. McGraw 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service 

Enclosure
#### Frederick Loomis, *as Trustee, etc., Respondent, v.*Silence J. White, *Appellant, Impleaded, etc.*

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Smith, P. J.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8666 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8666

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend title 28, United States Code, to authorize holding court for 
          the Central Division of Utah in Moab and Monticello.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. JUDICIAL DISTRICT.

    Section 125 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking 
``and St. George'' and inserting ``St. George, Moab, and Monticello.''

            Passed the House of Representatives December 3, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 8666

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend title 28, United States Code, to authorize holding court for 
          the Central Division of Utah in Moab and Monticello.
```
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 11 (Thursday, January 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 2276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-571]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-147-004]


Wyoming Interstate Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

January 10, 2007.
    Take notice that on January 5, 2007, Wyoming Interstate Company 
(WIC) submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's 
November 2, 2006 order issued in Docket Nos. RP06-147-002 and 003.
    WIC states that copies of the filing were served on parties on the 
official service list in the above-captioned proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance 
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests 
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of 
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest 
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the 
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu 
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons 
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies 
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d69093849599b8babfb8b385a3a6a6b9a4a296b0b3a4b5f8b1b9a0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="44020116070b2a282d2a21173134342b363004222136276a232b32">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-571 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

DFPTOFTRANSPORITIDN 

. DOCKETS 

:C30 o 3- UO 

TRAVEL GROUP, INC., D/B/A REPUBLIC AIR TRAVEL 

AND SCOT SPENCER 

AIRLIFr GROUP, INC. 

AND RICHARD BERNARD 

Unauthorized Air Transportation, Unfair and Deceptive 

PtBctices and Unfair Metliods of Competition, and 

Violations of Public Charter Rules 

EXPRESS ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

Unfair and Deceptive lYactices and Unfair Methods of 

Competition, and Violations of Public Charter Rules 

Enforcement Pk'oceeding 

DOT-OST-1995-272 

formerly 

Docket 49233 

STATUS REPORT 

The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings ("Enforcement Office"), pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order 

staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and 

settlement negotiations. 

The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents 

and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-

17486. 
There have been no further settJement discussions. 

Date; December 31, 2009. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Samuel Podberesky 

Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

Dayton Lehman, Jr. 

Deputy Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

William J. Wa^^rj 

Senior Trial Attorney 

Cf-O'^uy^ ^ 

United States Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Room 96-429 

Washington, D.C 20590 

TEL: 202-366-9342 

FAX: 202-366-7152 
DocWNo.DOT-OST.1995-212 

Kr 2009 a true and correct copy of the 

U.s.DepartmentofTransportation 

Docket Operations„M-30 

West Building Ground Floor 

RoomW12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

The Honorable Ronnie A Yoder 

?,ie?Administrative Law Judge 

STD^rsS^^^^^^ 

EastBuUdingGround Floor 

RoomE12-320 

Washington, D.C. 203yu 

TEL: (202) 366-2142 

FAX: (202) 366-7536 

Ascend Aviation GrW^^^^^^^ 3^^,,, LLC 

Ascend Aviation Marketing ^ 

KCP Leasing and services, LLC 

Scot Spencer 

C/O George Spencer 

24 Eton Court 

Bedminster,NJ 07921
CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0598

DCN: SGE00274.A01

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.