alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration by the Windup Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, entered November 28, 2016, the United States Small Business Administration hereby revokes the license of Redstone Business Lenders, LLC., a New Jersey Limited Partnership, to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 02020209 issued to Redstone Business Lenders, LLC, on November 16, 1963, and said license is hereby declared null and void as of November 28, 2016.

United States Small Business Administration.

A. Joseph Shepard,

Administrator for Investment and Innovation.

[FR Doc. 2018-18096 Filed 8-22-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Angelo Monaco et al., Appellants, v Raymond Cramer et al., Respondents.

Mikoll, J.

Appeals (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Hickman, J.), entered December 20, 1989 in Orange County, which, *inter alia,*granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the second cause of action of the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and (2) from an order of said court, entered February 14, 1990 in Orange County, which, upon reargument, adhered to its prior decision.

At issue on these appeals is whether Supreme Court properly dismissed, for failure to state a cause of action, the second cause of action in plaintiffs’ amended complaint alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240. The recent Court of Appeals decision in *Cannon v Putnam*(76 NY2d 644) compels an affirmance.

The pertinent facts are as follows. Defendants hired plaintiff Angelo Monaco (hereinafter plaintiff) to adjust and/or repair a television antenna located on a pole on their property in Orange County. The pole was located about 75 to 100 feet from defendants’ house and was atop a wood frame tower 18 to 20 feet high. Plaintiff was standing on an extension ladder making adjustments to the antenna when the ladder moved and he fell to the ground.

Plaintiff and his wife thereafter commenced this litigation against defendants to recover damages for plaintiff’s injuries. *987Defendants moved to dismiss the second cause of action alleging violation of Labor Law § 240 on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action because owners of one or two-family homes who contract for, but do not control, work on their premises are exempted from liability under that statute. The motion was granted and plaintiffs moved for reargument. Supreme Court granted reargument but adhered to its prior decision. These appeals ensued.

In *Cannon v Putnam (supra),*the defendant homeowner hired an individual to install a free-standing floodlight in his yard. This individual engaged the plaintiff to assist him. The plaintiff was subsequently injured when a suspended portion of the light fell on him. The Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the complaint insofar as it asserted claims against the defendant for violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241.

In the case at bar, there is no evidence that there was any purpose for the antenna other than the personal use by defendants at their residence, thereby satisfying the "dwelling” requirement of Labor Law § 240. The mere fact that defendant Jean Cramer relayed information concerning the quality of the picture received during the work did not amount to an exercise of direction and/or control over the work which would bring it within the contemplation of Labor Law § 240 *(see, Reyes v Silfies,*168 AD2d 979; *see also, Danish v Kennedy,*168 AD2d 768).

Orders affirmed, with costs. Weiss, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.
#### John L. Thomas, Plaintiff in Error, *vs.*Thomas Mathews, Defendant in Error.

1. *Fraud, Limitations*— Statute *of*— commences *running, when.*— In actions for relief on the ground of fraud, the statute of limitations begins to run from the discovery of the fraud, and where the fraud is connected with the eon- ' veyance of realty, ten years constitutes the bar. (Hunter *vs.*Hunter, 60 Mo., 446.)

*Error to Iron Circuit■ Court.*

*John L. Thomas, pro se.*

*Fisher & Rowell*with *J. J. Williams,*for Defendants in Error.

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action in the nature of a Bill in Equity, to set aside an alleged fraudulent conveyance, charged to have been made byEobert Mathews to his brother, the defendant, in the year 1855, to defraud creditors prior and subsequent.

The answer denied all fraud and set up the statute of limitations of ten years after the making of the deed, and before the commencement of the suit.

On motion of the plaintiff, that part of the answer setting up the statute of limitation was struck out and the defendant excepted. But the whole case is now before this court with the evidence preserved in a bill of exceptions, and we will consider the case as though no such motion had been made or acted on. If there was any fraud in the conveyance from Eohert Mathews to his brother Thomas Mathews, it was consummated at the time of the execution and recording of the deed in 1855. In actions for relief on the ground of fraud, the statute of limitations commences to run from the discovery of the fraud; and where the fraud grows out of realty or the conveyance of realty, ten years constitute the bar, and in regard to personalty, five years. See Hunter, *et al., vs.*Hunter, 50 Mo., 445, and cases cited.

There was no pretense that the alleged fraud, if any, was concealed and not discovered till within ten years before the commencement of this suit. There was no continuing fraud *108shown, by the evidence. The preponderance of testimony strongly tends to show, that all the improvements made on the land since the conveyances were made or paid for by the defendant, and that Robert Mathews was in possession merely as tenant of the defendant. Under this view, the plaintiff’s action to set aside the alleged fraudulent conveyances was barred by the statute of limitations.

It is therefore unnecessary to discuss the evidence in detail, as the judgment was for the right party it must be affirmed.

Judge Wagner concurs. Judge Bliss absent.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 165 (Friday, August 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42867-42868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18281]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Procedures for Submitting Request for Exclusions From the Section 232 
National Security Adjustments of Imports of Aluminum and Steel

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: Bureau of Industry and Security.
    Title: Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Procedures 
for Submitting Request for Exclusions from the Section 232 National 
Security Adjustments of Imports of Aluminum and Steel
    Form Number(s): N/A.
    OMB Control Number: 0694-0139.
    Type of Review: Regular submission.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 344,532.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 86,133.
    Estimated Time per Response: 4 hours.
    Needs and Uses: This collection of information supports 
Presidential Proclamations 9704 Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the 
United States and 9705 Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United 
States. On March 8, 2018, the President issued Proclamations 9704 and 
9705 concurring with the findings

[[Page 42868]]

of the two investigation reports submitted by the Secretary of Commerce 
pursuant to section 232 of the Trade Expansions Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. 
1862) and determining that adjusting imports through the imposition of 
duties on aluminum and steel is necessary so that imports of aluminum 
and steel will no longer threaten to impair the national security.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov, 
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/. Follow the instructions to view 
Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#531c1a01120c0026313e3a20203a3c3d133c3e317d363c237d343c25"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="024d4b50435d5177606f6b71716b6d6c426d6f602c676d722c656d74">[email protected]</span></a>.

Sheleen Dumas,
Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-18281 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


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

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                              WASHINGTON, DC 20549

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT

                     PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE

                         SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Date of report (Date of earliest event reported): SEPTEMBER 14, 2000

                            NEON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
               --------------------------------------------------
               (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

     DELAWARE                       333-38600                  04-3523408
----------------------------     ------------              -------------------
(State or Other Jurisdiction     (Commission                (IRS Employer
   of Incorporation)             File Number)              Identification No.)

2200 WEST PARK DRIVE, WESTBOROUGH, MASSACHUSETTS                     01581
------------------------------------------------                  ----------
   (Address of Principal Executive Offices)                       (Zip Code)

      REGISTRANT'S TELEPHONE NUMBER, INCLUDING AREA CODE:   (508) 616-7800

         -------------------------------------------------------------
         (Former Name or Former Address, if Changed since Last Report)


<PAGE>





Item 5.  Other Events.

     On September 14, 2000, the Company issued a press release announcing the
completion of its corporate reorganization, as a result of which it became the
parent holding company of NEON Optica, Inc. (formerly NorthEast Optic Network,
Inc.) and the consummation of its transactions with Exelon Ventures Corp. and
Consolidated Edison Communications, Inc., relating to the Company's expansion in
the New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C. markets.

         A copy of this press release has been filed with this Current Report on
Form 8-K as Exhibit 99.1 and is incorporated herein by reference.

EXHIBIT           DESCRIPTION

99.1             Press Release


<PAGE>


                                   SIGNATURES

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

                                              NEON Communications, Inc.
                                                   (Registrant)

                                              By: /S/ VICTOR COLANTONIO
                                                 -------------------------
                                              Name: Victor Colantonio
                                              Title:   President

Date:  September 14, 2000
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6270

THOMAS SHANE MATHERLY , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. JUSTIN ANDREWS , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. ( 5:13

- hc

- 02077

- D )

Submitted : June 29, 2017 Decided: July 10, 2017

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Thomas Shane Matherly, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lockridge, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Shane Matherly, a federal prisoner, app eals the district court ’ s order determining, after remand from this court, that Matherly was in the legal custody of the Bureau of Prisons when the government filed a certificate designating Matherly as a sexually dangerous person, and therefore denying r elief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Matherly v. Andrews , No.
5:13

- hc

- 02077

- D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 21, 2017) . We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42323-42324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17990]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express and 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

[[Page 42324]]

the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification 
Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: August 21, 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 
August 16, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 71 to 
Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2018-209, CP2018-291.

Elizabeth Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2018-17990 Filed 8-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### Ziegler et al., Appellants, *v.*Brown, Director, et al., Appellees.

(No. 30505

Decided January 16, 1946.)

*Messrs. Walter & Haverfield,*for appellants.

*Mr. Hugh S. Jenkins,*attorney general, and *Mr. Frederick L. Orum,*for appellees.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Williams and Turner, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the quarterly report of Artificial Intelligence Technology Solutions Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Garett Parsons, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 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; and2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  Date: May 3, 2019
    BY: /s/ Garett ParsonsGarett ParsonsPresident, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, 
Principal Accounting Officer, Treasurer and Director  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 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EERE Information Center

Search Help More Search Options

Printable Version

Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In

Freezers Test Procedure

Rulemaking

This page presents information on the

proposed test procedures and rulemakings for

walk-in coolers and freezers.

Section 312(c) of the Energy Independence

and Security Act (EISA) (PDF 1.0 MB) amends

section 343(a) of the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) (42 U.S.C.

6314(a)) by adding subsection 343(a)(9) (42

U.S.C. 6314(a)(9)), which establishes test

procedure definitions for walk-in coolers and

freezers. It also directs the Secretary of

Energy to establish test procedures to measure

the energy use of this equipment. Download

Adobe Reader.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will

develop test procedures and energy

conservation standards for walk-in coolers and

freezers under separate rulemakings, which

will proceed concurrently. DOE expects the

final rule for the test procedure rulemaking to

be issued before the notice of proposed

rulemaking (NOPR) for energy conservation

standards is issued.

DOE test procedures may reference portions of

test procedures and definitions from relevant

sources, such as those developed by the

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating,

and Air-Conditioning Engineers; the

Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration

Institute; the American Society for Testing and

Materials; and the American National

Standards Institute.

Test Procedure

Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Test

Procedure Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (coming soon)

Contact Information

Charles Llenza

Project Manager

(202) 586-2192

Printable Version

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Walk-In Coolers and ... http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial...

1 of 2 1/23/2009 10:05 AM

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0014 COMMENT 01EERE-2008-BT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.001
Building Technologies Program Home | EERE Home | U.S. Department of Energy

Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | USA.gov

Content Last Updated: 01/16/2009

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Walk-In Coolers and ... http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial...

2 of 2 1/23/2009 10:05 AM

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0014 COMMENT 01EERE-2008-BT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.001
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1




                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

American Technology Corporation
San Diego, California

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-09265, File No. 333-09269, File No.
333-23845 and File No. 333-59929) and Forms S-3 (File No. 333-27455, File No.
333-36003, File No. 333-71351 and File No. 333-36000) of our report dated
November 16, 2001 relating to the financial statements of American Technology
Corporation appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended September 30, 2001.


                              /s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
                              ---------------------
                                  BDO Seidman, LLP

Denver, Colorado
December 27, 2001
NJDEP HZRESULT Error Report
       File:       C:\Datamgt\NJ EDD\cwk\DGW 2H10\PFOA\HZRESULT
       Date:       03/21/2011 16:23
       Errors#:    (714)

 Rec#  Field       Error Description                       Bad Value


    1  NJDLABCERT  Field length is too long, see           CANA005
                   SRP-EDI.
                   * (689) instances of this error - 
                   * only the first one is reported.

  954  NJDLABCERT  Mandatory field has been left blank.    Null
                   * (25) instances of this error - 
                   * only the first one is reported.
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT








This Amendment, entered into on March 15, 2011, hereby amends certain sections of the Employment Agreement dated as of August 3, 2010 by and between Bill Glaser (the “Executive”) and AWESOME LIVING, INC., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), modifies the original Employment Agreement as follows:





1.
The title of the Executive shall be President of the Company.





2.
Term of Employment.  Subject to the provisions of Section 6, the term of Executive’s employment pursuant to this Agreement shall commence on and as of the date hereof and shall terminate on the fifth (5th) anniversary of the date of this Amendment.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above.








AWESOME LIVING, INC.








By:  /s/ Fred E. Tannous


Name: Fred E. Tannous


Title: Chief Executive Officer








/s/ Bill Glaser


Bill Glaser
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3836

To amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to exempt from the requirements of the Act government agencies, attorneys, and private child support enforcement agencies who are engaged in the collection of child

support due under a court order, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 9, 1994

Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. CAMP, Mr. GRANDY, and Mr. SUNDQUIST)

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on

Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs

A BILL

To amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to exempt

from the requirements of the Act government agencies,

attorneys, and private child support enforcement agencies

who are engaged in the collection of child support due

under a court order, 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 ‘‘Fair Debt Collection

5 Practices Amendments of 1994’’.
2

•HR 3836 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN ENTITIES ENGAGED IN

2 COLLECTION OF CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS.

3 Section 803(6) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices

4 Act (15 U.S.C. 1692a(6)) (defining debt collector) is

5 amended—

6 (1) by striking the period at the end of sub7 paragraph (F) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

8 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the fol9 lowing new subparagraph:

10 ‘‘(G) any government agency, attorney, or

11 private child support enforcement agency while

12 enforcing or attempting to enforce the collection

13 of child support owed, due, or asserted to be

14 owed or due another to the extent such activity

15 complies with all State child support collection

16 regulations.’’.

Æ