alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 233 (Thursday, December 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64251-64252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31807]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service


Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds; Termination of 
Authority: Munich American Reinsurance Company, Munich Reinsurance 
Company, U.S. Branch

SUMMARY: (Dept. Circ. 570, 1997--Rev., Supp. No. 3).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Surety Bond Branch (202) 874-7102.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the Certificates 
of Authority issued by the Treasury to Munich American Reinsurance 
Company and Munich Reinsurance Company, U.S. Branch, under the United 
States Code, Title 31, Sections 9304-9308, to qualify as an acceptable 
surety and as an acceptable reinsuring company on Federal bonds are 
hereby terminated.
    Munich American Reinsurance Company was last listed as an 
acceptable surety on Federal bonds at 62 FR 35567, July 1, 1997 and 
Munich

[[Page 64252]]

Reinsurance Company, U.S. Branch, was last listed as an acceptable 
reinsuring company on Federal bonds at 62 FR 35581, July 1, 1997.
    With respect to any bonds currently in force with both these 
companies, bond-approving officers may let such bonds run to expiration 
and need not secure new bonds. However, no new bonds should be 
accepted. In addition, bonds that are continuous in nature should not 
be renewed.
    The Treasury Department Circular 570 may be viewed and downloaded 
through the Internet (http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570.html) or through 
our computerized public bulletin board system (FMS Inside Line) at 
(202) 874-6887. A hard copy may be purchased from the Government 
Printing Office (GPO), Subscription Service, Washington, DC, telephone 
(202) 512-1800. When ordering the Circular from GPO, use the following 
stock number: 048-000-00509-8.
    Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Funds 
Management Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 
6A11, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

    Dated: November 20, 1997.
Charles F. Schwan III,
Director, Funds Management Division, Financial Management Service.
[FR Doc. 97-31807 Filed 12-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
#### Jessie Lee GREENE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 75-1008.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 20, 1976.

*1032Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Frank B. Kessler, Chief Appellate Division, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Ira N. Loewy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for appellee.

CROSS, Judge.

Appellant-defendant, Jessie Lee Greene, appeals a judgment of guilty and imposition of sentence for the offense of robbery.

Appellant-Greene was indicted by the Grand Jury of Broward County with robbery. Appellant thereafter moved to suppress a confession made by appellant to one Officer Czekanski of the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. Said motion alleged that the appellant’s confession had not been voluntarily given. A hearing was held on the motion to suppress. At the hearing appellant testified to various coercive measures used by Officer Czekanski to elicit appellant’s confession. The trial court denied the motion to suppress with the simple statement, “I am going to deny your motion to suppress. I think you can argue all that to the jury.” Trial was by jury. The jury found the appellant guilty of the robbery charged in the indictment. Judgment was entered accordingly, and appellant was sentenced. It is from this judgment and sentence that appellant appeals.

The primary question for our determination in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress without an unequivocal and explicit finding that the appellant’s confession was freely and voluntarily given.

We determine *McDole v. State,*283 So.2d 553 (Fla.1973), to be controlling. In *McDole,*the Florida Supreme Court quotes *Sims v. Georgia,*385 U.S. 538, 87 S.Ct. 639, 17 L.Ed.2d 593 (1967), which held that a trial judge need not make a formal finding of fact or write an opinion with respect to the voluntariness of a confession, but his conclusion that a confession is voluntary must appear from the record with unmistakable clarity. Thereupon the court determined that such “unmistakable clarity” requirement has not been met when the trial judge states merely that the motion to suppress is denied, as was done in the instant case.

Accordingly, we relinquish jurisdiction and remand the case to the trial judge to consider and then rule explicitly on the voluntariness of the appellant’s confession. Promptly after an order is entered on the issue of voluntariness, counsel for appellant shall file a certified copy of the order in this court. Such further proceedings shall be taken by this court as are appropriate, depending upon the order submitted.

It is so ordered.

MAGER, C. J., CROSS, J., and SMITH, D. C., Associate Judge, concur.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 10365 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JAVIER CRUZ

- ROSARIO, also known as Javier Cruz , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:15

- CR

- 206

- 1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Javier Cruz

- Rosario has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cruz

- Rosario h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 23, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-10365 Document: 00513771283 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/23/2016No. 16

- 10365

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion fo r leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-10365 Document: 00513771283 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/23/2016
Exhibit 32

                          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 Northeast Utilities (the
registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, Charles W. Shivery,
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the registrant and John H.
Forsgren, Vice Chairman, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the registrant.

/s/ Charles W. Shivery
    (Signature)
    Charles W. Shivery
    Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ John H. Forsgren
    (Signature)
    John H. Forsgren
    Vice Chairman, Executive Vice President and
    Chief Financial Officer

May 7, 2004


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and
will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### 

#### **INCOME SELF-CERTIFICATION**

#### 

#### **INCOME SELF- CERTIFICATION**

****
*This form is used in lieu of providing income documentation, but household member(s)must be willing to provide documentation if requested*

**INSTRUCTIONS:**This is a written statement from the applicant documenting “Annual (Gross) Income”, the number of members in the household and the income for each member.  Each household member must then sign this statement to certify that the information is complete and accurate, and that source documentation will be provided upon request.

**Household Members**

**Income Information**

Annual gross income (total of all members) = $___________

**Certification**

I/we certify that this information is complete and accurate. I/we agree to provide, upon request, documentation on all income sources to the HUD Grantee/Program Administrator.  I/we certify that this information is complete and accurate. I/we agree to provide, upon request, documentation on all income sources to the HUD Grantee/Program Administrator.

* Attach another copy of this page if additional signature lines are required.

**WARNING: *The information provided on this form is subject to verification at any time, and Title 18, Section 1001 of the U.S. Code states that a person is guilty of a felony and assistance can be terminated for knowingly and willingly making a false or fraudulent statement to a department of the United States Government*.**

State of South Carolina

County of Spartanburg

Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on this ___________ day of ______________, 20______, by _________________________________________, proved to me on the basis of presentation of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) who appeared before me.

Signature______________________________________		Seal:

                                            Notary Public

My commission expires: _______________________	 

# image1.png

# image2.png

# image3.jpg

# image4.png
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          84,654
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,631,314
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     59,538
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,178,123
<PP&E>                                      13,696,824
<DEPRECIATION>                                 189,851
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,372,529
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,920,827
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,227,004
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,797,256
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,372,529
<SALES>                                      1,107,625
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,107,625
<CGS>                                          430,246
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,903,601
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (991,033)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (991,033)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (991,033)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 of Tower International, Inc. (the Company) as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark Malcolm, Chief Executive 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 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.

March 14, 2011





|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Mark Malcolm       
|Mark Malcolm           
|Chief Executive Officer
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2323 

To prohibit airlines and Amtrak from conditioning the provision of transportation services to any individual on such individual having been vaccinated against COVID–19, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 1, 2021 

Mr. LAMALFA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit airlines and Amtrak from conditioning the provision of transportation services to any individual on such 

individual having been vaccinated against COVID–19, 

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. CERTAIN COVID VACCINATION REQUIREMENTS 

4 PROHIBITED. 

5 (a) AIRLINES.—The Secretary of Transportation, 

6 acting through the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 

7 Administration, shall prohibit air carriers (as such term 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2323 IH

1 is defined in section 40102(a) of title 49, United States 

2 Code) from denying an individual air transportation solely 

3 because such individual has not been vaccinated against 

4 COVID–19. 

5 (b) AMTRAK.—Amtrak may not deny an individual 

6 passenger rail transportation solely because such indi7 vidual has not been vaccinated against COVID–19. 

8 (c) FUNDING PROHIBITIONS.—No Federal funds 

9 may be obligated or expended— 

10 (1) to create, administer, or mandate the cre11 ation of a database of individuals who have been 

12 vaccinated against COVID–19; and 

13 (2) by any Federal agency (as defined in sec14 tion 105 of title 5, United States Code) to develop, 

15 implement, or enforce any Federal law, rule, regula16 tion, guidance, or policy denying any individual ac17 cess to transportation or otherwise restricting or 

18 preventing any individual from traveling solely be19 cause such individual has not been vaccinated 

20 against COVID–19. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Order entered December 3, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 00874
- CV TERESA WARD COOPER, ET AL., Appellant s

V. CITY OF DALLAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Tri al Court Cause No. DC
- 13
- 02287
- A



### O RDER
We GRANT appellants’ December 1, 2015 unopposed second motion for an extension of time to file a brief. Appellant shall file a brief by MONDAY, JANUARY 4, 2016 . We caution appellants that no further extension of t ime will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,232,379
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  247,710
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (6,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  3,281,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,529
<PP&E>                                       1,675,377
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,573,362)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,027,911
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          135,074
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           77,500
<PREFERRED>                                        597
<COMMON>                                     3,724,773
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,089,967
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,027,911
<SALES>                                        319,349
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               733,138
<CGS>                                          281,148
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  450,312
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                281,826
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1320
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            280,506
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   280,506
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
        

</TABLE>
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed March 8, 2017.

________________

No. 3D16-1021

Lower Tribunal No. 16-1432

________________



### Nedra Gabriel,

Appellant,

vs.



### Doris Salazar,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio E.

Marin, Judge.

Jay Koretsky (Lauderdale Lakes), for appellant.

Eaton & Wolk, and Douglas F. Eaton, for appellee.

Before LAGOA, SALTER and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Concession of Error

Based on the appellee’s commendable concession, we reverse the dismissalwith prejudice of the complaint. We remand with instructions to permit the

plaintiff to amend the complaint.

Reversed and remanded.

2
August 31 , 2010

MEMORANDUM TO: EPA Docket # EPA- HQ - OAR-2009 - 0211 FROM: Robert Anderson , Environmental Protection Specialist , EPA /OAR/OTAQ/CISD RE: Preliminary Data from Tier DOE Catalyst Durability Program (V4/CRC E - 87 -2) Attached is an Excel spreadsheet th at contains preliminary data from the DOE Catalyst Durability Test Program also referred to as the DOE V4 program or the CRC E - 87 - 2 program. These data are preliminary results for the Tier 2 vehicle portion of the test program. The enclosed spreadsheet co ntains all data submitted to EPA from DOE as of August 31, 2010. It should be noted that these data are preliminary and therefore, subject to change based on ongoing QA/QC . Please read the “readme” tab of the attached spreadsheet for more information con cerning the data. For more information, please contact Robert Anderson at either anderson.robert@epa.gov or (202) 343 - 9718 .
SMALL BUSINESS PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM

The Paycheck Protection Program provides small businesses with funds to pay up to 8 weeks of 

payroll costs including benefits. Funds can also be used to pay interest on mortgages, rent, and 

utilities.

Fully Forgiven

Funds are provided in the form of loans that will be fully forgiven when used for payroll costs, 

interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities (due to likely high subscription, at least 75% of the 

forgiven amount must have been used for payroll). Loan payments will also be deferred for six 

months. No collateral or personal guarantees are required. Neither the government nor lenders 

will charge small businesses any fees.

Must Keep Employees on the Payroll—or Rehire Quickly

Forgiveness is based on the employer maintaining or quickly rehiring employees and 

maintaining salary levels. Forgiveness will be reduced if full-time headcount declines, or if

salaries and wages decrease.

All Small Businesses Eligible

Small businesses with 500 or fewer employees—including nonprofits, veterans organizations, 

tribal concerns, self-employed individuals, sole proprietorships, and independent contractors—

are eligible. Businesses with more than 500 employees are eligible in certain industries.

When to Apply

Starting April 3, 2020, small businesses and sole proprietorships can apply. Starting April 10, 

2020, independent contractors and self-employed individuals can apply. We encourage you to 

apply as quickly as you can because there is a funding cap. 

How to Apply

You can apply through any existing SBA 7(a) lender or through any federally insured depository 

institution, federally insured credit union, and Farm Credit System institution that is 

participating. Other regulated lenders will be available to make these loans once they are 

approved and enrolled in the program. You should consult with your local lender as to whether 

it is participating. All loans will have the same terms regardless of lender or borrower. A list of 

participating lenders as well as additional information and full terms can be found at 

www.sba.gov. 

The Paycheck Protection Program is implemented by the Small Business 

Administration with support from the Department of the Treasury. Lenders 

should also visit www.sba.gov or www.coronavirus.gov for more information.

***Note: This document does not reflect program changes under the 

Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020, enacted on June 5, 2020***
#### Oscar FRANCIS, Appellant, v. Lorena EMERY, et al., Appellees.

No. 69-441.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 24, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.