alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 05-606 

________________________________________________________________________ 

WEAPONS 

Proliferation 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and AZERBAIJAN 

Signed at Baku and Washington 

May 6 and June 6, 2005 

and 

Agreements Amending the Agreement 

Signed at Baku and Washington June 12 and 23, 2006 

Signed at Baku and Washington 

February 28 and March 6, 2007 

Signed at Baku and Washington 

September 12 and October 5, 2007 

Signed at Baku and Washington 

February 13 and March 5, 2008 

Signed at Baku and Washington 

April 13 and August 13, 2009 
 

NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 

 AZERBAIJAN 

 Weapons: Proliferation 

Agreement signed at Baku and Washington 

 May 6 and June 6, 2005; 

Entered into force June 6, 2005. 

And agreements amending the agreement. 

Signed at Baku and Washington June 12 and 23, 2006; 

 Entered into force June 23, 2006. 

Signed at Baku and Washington February 28 and March 6, 2007; 

 Entered into force March 6, 2007. 

Signed at Baku and Washington September 12 and October 5, 2007; 

 Entered into force October 5, 2007. 

Signed at Baku and Washington February 13 and March 5, 2008; 

 Entered into force March 5, 2008. 

Signed at Baku and Washington April 13 and August 13, 2009; 

 Entered into force August 13, 2009.
EXHIBIT
31.2
 
  Certification
of CFO Pursuant to
  Securities
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14
  as
Adopted Pursuant to
  Section 302
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  I, Barry
Hall, certify that:
 
 1.  I have
reviewed this amended annual report on Form 10-KSB of Trestle Holdings,
Inc.;
  2.  Based on
my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;
  3.  Based on
my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this annual report, fairly present 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 annual 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 we have:
  a)  designed
such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure 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 annual 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 annual 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
function):
  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 or not 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.
  Date:  March 30,
2005
 /s/
BARRY HALL
 Barry
Hall
 President,
Chief Financial Officer and
 Corporate
Secretary
EXHIBIT 32.3


                            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  Matrix  Bancorp,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, David
W. Kloos,  Senior Vice  President  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant 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 and 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.



Dated:   March 14, 2005                       /s/ David W. Kloos
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Name: David W. Kloos
                                              Title: Senior Vice President and
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2


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


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of RPM Advantage, Inc.
(the "Registrant") for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David R. Pressler, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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, 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:   July 15, 2011

By:

/s/ David R. Pressler


David R. Pressler
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2896 

To amend the Small Business Act to define the term ‘‘State’’ for the purposes 

of the microloan program carried out under that Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 

Ms. HIRONO introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to define the term ‘‘State’’ 

for the purposes of the microloan program carried out 

under that Act, 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 ‘‘Northern Mariana Is5 lands Entrepreneurship Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MICROLOAN PROGRAM DEFINITIONS. 

7 Section 7(m)(11) of the Small Business Act (15 

8 U.S.C. 636(m)(11)) is amended— 

9 (1) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking the pe10 riod at the end and inserting a semicolon; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 2896 IS

1 (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period 

2 at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

3 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(E) the term ‘State’ means each of the 

5 several States of the United States, the District 

6 of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 

7 Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, 

8 the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Is9 lands, and American Samoa.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

802 TP 13-00194 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., SCONIERS, VALENTINO, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH GUARNERI, PETITIONER,

V ORDER

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

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

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (WILLIAM E. STORRS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County [Mark H. Dadd, A.J.], entered January 23, 2013) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a Tier II hearing that petitioner had violated various inmate rules.
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Entered: June 28, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 187 (Friday, September 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 50565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25538]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. EC97-50-000]


Heartland Energy Services, Inc.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on September 17, 1997, Heartland Energy Services, 
Inc. (HES), filed additional information regarding the nature of the 
jurisdictional contracts being transferred from HES to the joint 
venture, Cargill-IEC, L.L.C.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filings should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 285.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before September 29, 1997. 
Protests 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. Any persons wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-25538 Filed 9-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Meyer et al. *v.*Perlstein et al.

*Injunction*— Unlawful *interference with business*— Record *insufficient for review*— Affirmance *by supreme court.*

(No. 17596

Decided April 17, 1923.)

Error to the Court of Appeals of Lake county.

*Messrs. Thompson, Hiñe <& Flory,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs. Baker, Hostetler & Sidlo*and *Mr. Benjamin F: Fiery,*for defendants in error.

By the Court.

This is an action wherein plaintiffs sought to enjoin certain garment workers’ and manufacturers’ associations from interfering, by threats or other unlawful means, with the business and customers of the plaintiffs, and also from interfering with certain contracts alleged to have been entered into between the plaintiffs and some of the defendants.

The defendants answered, substantially denying the material allegations of the petition. The cause was heard by the court of common pleas, and appealed to the Court of Appeals. The latter court finding “all of the issues in favor of the defendants” dissolved the injunction theretofore allowed.

Since no finding of facts was made by the appellate court, this court finds itself unable, upon the state of this record, and in view of said journal entry, to do otherwise than affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Marshall, C. J., Wanamaker, Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Bay and Allen, JJ., concur.
#### Vera Mae ROBINSON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BEAUREGARD PARISH POLICE JURY, Defendant and Appellee.

No. 5717.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Feb. 6, 1978.

E. M. Nichols, Lake Charles, for plaintiffs and appellants.

William C. Pegues, III, DeRidder, for defendant and appellee.

Before CULPEPPER, DOMENGEAUX and WATSON, JJ.

CULPEPPER, Judge.

This wrongful death action was previously decided by us, 342 So.2d 696 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1977). We affirmed the trial court decision that the bridge on which the accident occurred was not a public bridge, and, therefore, the defendant police jury had no duty to maintain it. We did not reach the issue of the jury’s negligence. Our Supreme Court granted writs, reversed our decision, held the bridge is a public bridge and remanded the case to us to consider the issue of negligence, 351 So.2d 113 (1977).

The general facts as to the nature and location of the bridge and as to the occurrence of the accident are set forth in our original opinion. We will not repeat them here.

While we did not discuss the issue of negligence in our earlier opinion, the Supreme Court noted that the trial court had done so. We quote from the Supreme Court opinion: “Furthermore, he (the trial judge) held that plaintiff had not proved negligence or liability on the part of defendant because (1) inspection of the broken parts of the bridge revealed that the timbers were solid, not rotten, (2) the police jury had no knowledge of any defect, and (3) the bridge had been inspected over a month before the accident by the police juror who had responsibility for roads and bridges in his ward, and appeared to be in good shape.”

In his written reasons for judgment, 66 pages in length, the trial judge discusses in detail the testimony of the witnesses on which he based these factual findings. We have carefully reviewed the record and find it fully supports them.

Under the findings of fact, there are no issues of law.

For the reasons assigned, we find no negligence or liability by defendant. The judgment rejecting plaintiffs’ demands is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs-appellants.

AFFIRMED.