alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Table 5.  Homeownership Rates for the United States:  1968 to 2008

          (in percent)

   Year     First    Second     Third     Fourth

           Quarter   Quarter   Quarter   Quarter



 2008...        67.8

2007....        68.4      68.2      68.2      67.8

2006....        68.5      68.7      69.0      68.9

2005....        69.1      68.6      68.8      69.0

2004....        68.6      69.2      69.0      69.2

2003....        68.0      68.0      68.4      68.6

2002\r..        67.8      67.6      68.0      68.3

2002....        67.8      67.6      68.0      68.3

2001....        67.5      67.7      68.1      68.0

2000....        67.1      67.2      67.7      67.5



1999....        66.7      66.6      67.0      66.9

1998....        65.9      66.0      66.8      66.4

1997....        65.4      65.7      66.0      65.7

1996....        65.1      65.4      65.6      65.4

1995....        64.2      64.7      65.0      65.1

1994....        63.8      63.8      64.1      64.2

1993\r..        63.7      63.9      64.2      64.2

1993....        64.2      64.4      64.7      64.6

1992....        64.0      63.9      64.3      64.4

1991....        63.9      63.9      64.2      64.2

1990....        64.0      63.7      64.0      64.1

1989\r..        63.9      63.8      64.1      63.8



1989....        63.9      63.9      64.0      63.8

1988....        63.7      63.7      64.0      63.8

1987....        63.8      63.8      64.2      64.1

1986....        63.6      63.8      63.8      63.9

1985....        64.1      64.1      63.9      63.5

1984....        64.6      64.6      64.6      64.1

1983....        64.7      64.7      64.8      64.4

1982....        64.8      64.9      64.9      64.5

1981....        65.6      65.3      65.6      65.2

1980....        65.5      65.5      65.8      65.5

1979\r..        64.8      64.9      65.8      65.4



1979....        65.3      65.1      66.0      65.8

1978....        64.8      64.4      65.2      65.4

1977....        64.8      64.5      65.0      64.9

1976....        64.6      64.6      64.9      64.8

1975....        64.4      64.9      64.6      64.5

1974....        64.8      64.8      64.6      64.4

1973....        64.9      64.4      64.4      64.4

1972....        64.3      64.5      64.3      64.4

1971....        64.0      64.1      64.4      64.5

1970....        64.3      64.0      64.4      64.0

1969....        64.1      64.4      64.4      64.4

1968....        63.6      64.1      64.1      63.6

\r Revised.
No. 11357.

#### The Board of Education of Green Township *v.*Brown, an Infant, by etc.

Decided December 7, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Hocking county.

*Messrs. Wright &*Pettit, for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. O. W. PI. Wright,*for defendant in error.

Judgment reversed on authority of *Board of Education*v. *Best,*52 Ohio St., 138.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Davis and Shaucic, JJ., concur.
#### Clifford Lee BUCKLEY v. The Honorable Thomas M. BRAHNEY, Jr., et al.

No. 53528.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 11, 1973.

In re: Clifford Lee Buckley applying for writs of mandamus and prohibition and habeas corpus.

Writ granted. It is ordered that the relator, Clifford Lee Buckley, be tried within ninety (90) days or cause be shown in this court on August 29, 1973.
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
                   ------------------------------------------

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, the undersigned, Richard A. Wisot, the chief
financial officer of Transpro, Inc. (the "issuer"), does hereby certify that the
report on Form 10-Q accompanying this certification (the "report") fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in
the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the issuer.

/s/ Richard A. Wisot
--------------------
Richard A. Wisot
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(chief financial officer)
Transpro, Inc.
August 16, 2004

                                       24
```
October 27, 2014 

BY FACSIMILE 

Mr. Paul Gretch 

Director 

Office 

des transports 

du Canada 

Office of International Aviation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

X40, suite 6402 

400 7th Street S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Dear Mr. Gretch 

Reference: OST 2006-24269 

Canadian 

Transportation 

Agency 

M4820-U5-19 

This letter confirms that the Canadian Transportation Agency considers applications by United 

States air carriers for approval to operate charters to and from Canada, including charters 

between Canada and third countries, in accordance with the provisions of the Air Transport 

Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, signed March 12, 2007 

(Agreement). In addition, as established in the Agreement, charter services not specified in the 

Annex to that Agreement, are considered on the basis of comity and reciprocity. 

M nager International Agreements 

ruce Christie, ANA 

arc Rioux, ACEA. 

rian Hedberg, US DoT 

Ottawa (Ontario) K1 A ON9 

www.otc.gc.ca 

Ottawa Ontario K1A ON9 

www.cta.gc.ca 

Canada
#### Edd SHEDD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. T-174.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 27, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 8, 1974.

Lacy Mahon, Jr., and Bartley K. Vickers, of Mahon & Mahon, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Andrew W. Lindsey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., SPECTOR, J., and CREWS, JOHN J., Associate Judge, concur.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 149 (Thursday, August 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 37830]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16523]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: August 2, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
July 27, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 455 to Competitive Product List. 
Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2018-199, CP2018-
277.

Elizabeth Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2018-16523 Filed 8-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
California Environmental Protection Agency 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

Executive Order S-14-009 

WHEREAS, the rules identified in Enclosure A have been adopted, amended, or 

rescinded by the following air pollution control and air quality management districts 

(districts): 

Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District 

Feather River Air Quality Management District 

North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

South Coast Air Quality Management District 

WHEREAS, the districts are authorized by California Health and Safety Code (H&SC) 

section 40001 to adopt and enforce the rules identified in Enclosure A; 

WHEREAS, the rules have been submitted to the Air Resources Board (ARB) for 

inclusion in the State of California lmplementation Plan forAchieving and Maintaining 

the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (SIP) as reasonably available control 

measures for limiting emissions of air pollutants within the districts; 

WHEREAS, ARB has determined that these adopted and amended rules are necessary 

to meet requirements of the federal Clean Air Act; and 

WHEREAS, ARB is authorized by H&SC sections 39601, 39602, and 41650 through 

41652 to adopt district rules as revisions to the SIP. 

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that ARB hereby adopts the changes to the districts' 

rules identified in Enclosure A as revisions to the SIP. 

I certify, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.102(f), that the rules identified in Enclosure A were 

adopted, amended, or rescinded after notice and public hearings as required by 

40 CFR 51.102(a) and 51.102(d). 

~ 

Executed in Sacramento, California, this day of7~,/ , 2014. 

Riahard W. Corey 

Executive Officer
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

YUDITH PEREZ-LOPEZ,

Appellant,

v.

JUMBO EXPRESS, INC., et al,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3493

[May 17, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Joseph Marx, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502015CA008676XXXXMB.

Maria Abellon of Abellon, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Michael K. Mittelmark of Michaud, Mittelmark, Marowitz & Asrani PLLC, 

Boca Raton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### NORFOLK DREDGING COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. Elizabeth Penelope POUNDS and David Johnsen, Appellees.

No. 1166.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

May 6, 1968.

Rehearing Denied June 20, 1968.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1855 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the reduced 

recognition period for built-in gains for S corporations. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 18, 2013 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Mr. ROBERTS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

permanent the reduced recognition period for built-in 

gains for S corporations. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REDUCED RECOGNITION PERIOD FOR BUILT-IN 

4 GAINS MADE PERMANENT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (7) of section 1374(d) 

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

7 (1) by striking subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), 

8 and (D), 

9 (2) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as sub10 paragraph (B), and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1855 IS

1 (3) by inserting before subparagraph (B) (as so 

2 redesignated) the following new subparagraph: 

3 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘recognition 

4 period’ means the 5-year period beginning with 

5 the 1st day of the 1st taxable year for which 

6 the corporation was an S corporation. For pur7 poses of applying this section to any amount in8 cludible in income by reason of distributions to 

9 shareholders pursuant to section 593(e), the 

10 preceding sentence shall be applied without re11 gard to the phrase ‘5-year’.’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

13 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

14 December 31, 2013. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Melvis H. COODY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-168.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 18, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

      ( print page 38324)    
                    Notice is hereby given that, on July 12, 2018, Pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Southwest Research Institute—Cooperative Research Group on ROS-Industrial Consortium-Americas (“RIC-Americas”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, has been added as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and RIC-Americas intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On April 30, 2014, RIC-Americas filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 9, 2014 (79 FR 32999).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on June 11, 2018. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 9, 2018 (83 FR 31775).                

Suzanne Morris,

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics Unit, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2018-16713 Filed 8-3-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Ralph Benton GREENLEAF, Appellee.

No. 72-763.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 16, 1973.

ORDERED upon the Motion to Dismiss filed herein by the State of Florida on December 20, 1972, the above-styled cause is dismissed, and the request to Certify the Question of July 21st, 1972 by the Hon. W. Rogers Turner, as Judge of the then Criminal Court of Record of Orange County, Florida, now the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida is hereby denied because no proper predicate has been shown for this court granting the said certified question filed herein.

Appeal dismissed.

W. Rogers Turner, Judge.
#### Herbert SEIDEL, Appellant, v. Josh REPHUN et al., Appellees.

No. 72-620.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 15, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT
32.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
906 OF THE**
 **SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002**
 
 
 I, Wayne
F. Irmiter, Vice President and Controller of Salton Sea Funding Corporation (the
“Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1)
    
    the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
      ended March 31, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
      U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and(2)
    
    the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.
 
 
 Date: May
6, 2005
 
 
 /s/
Wayne F. Irmiter
 Wayne F.
Irmiter
 Vice
President and Controller
 (chief
accounting officer)
```

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 33949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15273]

[[Page 33949]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on June 22, 2018, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Advanced Media Workflow 
Association, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with 
the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, NEP Group, Pittsburgh, PA; Media Links Company Ltd., 
Kawasaki, JAPAN; BFE Studio und Medien Systeme GmbH, Mainz, GERMANY; 
Chengdu Sobey Digital Technology Company, Ltd., Chengdu, PEOPLE'S 
REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Net Insight, Stockholm, SWEDED; LEADER Electronics 
Corporation, Kanagawa, JAPAN; and Douglas McGee (individual member), 
Culver City, CA, have been added as parties to this venture.
    Also, Sohonet, San Jose, CA; Arvato Systems S4M, Coloneum, GERMANY; 
Tokyo Broadcasting System Television Inc., Tokyo, JAPAN; NRK, Oslo, 
NORWAY; and Canon U.S.A. Inc., Melville, NY, have withdrawn as parties 
to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Advanced Media Workflow Association, 
Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all 
changes in membership.
    On March 28, 2000, Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. filed 
its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 29, 2000 (65 FR 40127).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on March 26, 
2018. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on April 24, 2018 (83 FR 17852).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics Unit, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-15273 Filed 7-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
```
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

 37

 38

 39

 40

 41

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/16

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 16 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.77 N 77.11 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

★

■ ■ ■ ■

★

●

●

★

●

● ●

●
#### HYTE DEVELOPMENT CORP., a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CREDIT CORPORATION, a New York Corporation, Appellee.

No. 77-325.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 21, 1978.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1978.

*1255Stanley H. Spieler, Miami, for appellant.

John L. Britton, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and KE-HOE, JJ.

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellant, cross-defendant below, brings this appeal from an order entered by the trial court denying its motion to vacate sale and to vacate order correcting scrivener’s error nunc pro tunc. We have concluded that it was not error for the trial court to deny appellant’s motion to vacate the order correcting a scrivener’s error; however, we have further concluded that it was error for the trial court not to grant appellant’s motion to vacate the sale.

On December 5, 1976, a foreclosure sale of appellant’s property was conducted to satisfy a final judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of appellee mortgagee, cross-plaintiff below. Appellee was the purchaser at the sale which was held pursuant to notice. Subsequently, certificates of sale and title, were issued. All of these acts were under the apparent aegis of Section 45.031, Florida Statutes (1975), which relates to judicial sales procedures.

After the issuance of the certificate of title, appellee discovered that there was an error in the description of the property sold. The error appeared in the notice of sale, certificate of sale, and certificate of title. Appellee then brought this matter to the attention of the trial court which, ex parte, on December 29, 1976, entered an order correcting the scrivener’s error nunc pro tunc.

Thereafter, appellant filed a motion to vacate the order correcting the scrivener’s error and to vacate the final judgment of foreclosure, the public sale thereunder, and the certificates of sale and title. On January 13, 1977, the trial court entered an order denying appellant’s motions. This appeal followed.

Appellant’s primary point on appeal is that the notice of sale failed to comply with the statutory requirements of Section 45.-031, Florida Statutes (1975), thereby depriving it of due process of law.

Although we do not agree with appellant’s contention that the trial court abused its discretion in correcting the scrivener’s error, we have concluded that, because a proper legal description of the property to be sold is an essential requirement of Section 45.031, Florida Statutes (1975), the trial court did abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to vacate the sale, etc. Having discovered and corrected the error, the trial court should cause the property to be resold pursuant to the applicable statutory provisions for such sales. Therefore, the order appealed is reversed, except to the extent that it permitted the scrivener’s error to be corrected, and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
----

**Exhibit      32.1**

**SECTION      906 CERTIFICATION**

| (1)    | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended September                30, 2005                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 this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in                all                material respects, the financial condition and result of operations                of The                Amacore Group, Inc..          |

|   | /s/                Clark A.                Marcus         Clark                A. MarcusChief                Executive Officer |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, Florida, a municipal corporation, et al., Appellants, v. BARROB, INC., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Arlington Hotel, Appellee.

No. 67-375.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

May 14, 1968.

Rehearing Denied June 11, 1968.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.