alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 174 (Friday, September 7, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 45337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19349]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0770; Amendment No. 71-50]
RIN 2120-AA66


Airspace Designations; Incorporation by Reference

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects a final rule published in the Federal 
Register of August 28, 2018, that amends Title 14 Code of Federal 
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 relating to airspace designations to 
reflect the approval by the Director of the Federal Register of the 
incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations 
and Reporting Points. This action corrects the Airspace Designations 
and Reporting Points, signature date from August 8, 2017, to August 13, 
2018.

DATES: These regulations are effective September 15, 2018, through 
September 15, 2019. The incorporation by reference of FAA Order 
7400.11C is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 
September 15, 2018, through September 15, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah A. Combs, Airspace Policy Group, 
Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (83 FR 
43759; August 28, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2018-0770 amending Title 14 
Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 relating to airspace 
designations to reflect the approval by the Director of the Federal 
Register of the incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.11C, 
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points. Subsequent to publication, 
the FAA found that the signature date for the FAA Order 7400.11C, 
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, under the Availability and 
Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference section is 
incorrect. This action corrects the date from August 8, 2017 to August 
13, 2018.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Airspace 
Designations; Incorporation by Reference, published in the Federal 
Register of August 28, 2018 (83 FR 43756), FR Doc. 2018-18507, is 
corrected as follows:


Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
On page 43756, column 3, line 43, under Availability and Summary of 
Documents for Incorporation by Reference remove ``August 8, 2017'' and 
add in its place ``August 13, 2018'', and on page 43757, row 1, line 
48, remove ``August 8, 2018'' and add in its place ``August 13, 2018''.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 29, 2018.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2018-19349 Filed 9-6-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
#### In the Matter of S., Petitioner, v Thomas Coughlin, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County), to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

After reviewing all of petitioner’s contentions regarding procedural irregularities, only a few warrant any discussion. The misbehavior report, while not mentioning by name the other parties involved, contained enough specifics, including a description of the alleged violations by petitioner and the approximate time of their occurrence, as to sufficiently inform petitioner of the charges against him so as to allow him to prepare a defense *(see, Matter of Vogelsang v Coombe,*105 AD2d 913, 914, *affd*66 NY2d 835; *Matter of Bennett v LeFevre,*115 AD2d 141). Equally without merit are petitioner’s contentions of inadequate employee assistance and denial of witnesses. Not only did the employee assistant do all that was possible with respect to a certain relevant witness, but the *938Hearing Officer’s decision to conclude the hearing without that witness did not deny petitioner any due process rights in that reasonable and substantial efforts were made both before and throughout the hearing to locate the witness *(see, Matter of Law v Racette,*120 AD2d 846, 848). Finally, we find that the testimony by the woman who participated in the smuggling scheme with petitioner, the documentary evidence and the testimony by the Deputy Inspector General, which properly included hearsay testimony, all provided substantial evidence to support the determination *(see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith,*66 NY2d 130, 139; *Matter of De Torres v Coughlin,*135 AD2d 1068, 1070, *lv denied*72 NY2d 801).

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in this Registration Statement of our report dated January 21, 2000
included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999
of Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc., and to all references to our Firm
included in this Registration Statement.

                                 Arthur Andersen LLP

                                 /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Portland, Oregon
August 24, 2000
EXHIBIT 99.2


                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
           BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350.


I, James L. Smith,  the Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Chairman of the Board of
Directors of Summit Life  Corporation,  hereby  certify that this Report,  which
contains the following financial  statements:  the Consolidated  Balance Sheets,
Consolidated Statements of Operations,  Consolidated Statements of Stockholders'
Equity,  Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows and the notes to the consolidated
financial  statements,  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
the  information  contained  in this Report  presents  fairly,  in all  material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of  operations  of Summit Life
Corporation.

                                               /s/ James L. Smith
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              James L. Smith
                                              Chief Executive Officer and
                                              Chairman of the Board of Directors
                                              March 27, 2003
























                                       36
EXHIBIT 32.2
  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)
  The undersigned executive officer of Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania (the “Registrant”) hereby certifies that theRegistrant’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
   Date:
December 9, 2010
/s/Peter J. MeierPeter J. MeierExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and has been provided to Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Elisha Launius, Defendant in Error, *vs.*William C. Cole, Plaintiff in Error.

1. *Practice, civil*— Appeal—Affidavit—Informality *of*— An affidavit for appeal is not invalidated from the fact that the signature of deponent was through mistake placed.below the *jurat*instead of being in its proper place.

*Error to Stoddard Circuit Court.*

*E. S. McKeon,*for Plaintiff in Error.

Wagner, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The record in this cause is very imperfect and it is not easy to see the exact grounds on which the court predicated its judgment.

*148It was an appeal from a justice of the peace, and the appeal was dismissed for certain reasons stated in the motion *of*the respondent. But the bill of exceptions states that the appeal was dismissed for want of an affidavit. If this was the sole ground for dismissal, the court undoubtedly erred, as there is nothing alleged against - the affidavit but a mere informality. The affidavit was duly signed by the appellant but by inadvertance or mistake his signature was placed below the *jurat*instead of its proper place, but this was no cause for treating it as a nullity.

Besides, pending the motion for dismissal the appellant offered to file a new affidavit, which the court refused to allow.

The statute declares that no appeal from a justice’s court shall be dismissed for want of an affidavit, if the appellant or some person for him will file in the appellant court the affidavit required by law before motion to dismiss is determined. (2 *W.*S. 848, § 7.)

The judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Judge Adams concurs. Judge Bliss absent.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Moore, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pesce, J.), rendered November 29, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to establish that he possessed the intent necessary to support a conviction of assault in the second degree because it was his accomplice who shot the victim during the course of the robbery. This claim is unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt. The evidence that the defendant was inside the video arcade when the robbery and shooting occurred and that he threatened the victim was uncontroverted. There was also testimony that he gave some orders to his accomplice while in the video arcade and that he left the arcade with his accomplice after the shooting. This evidence was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant had the intent to injure the victim *(see, People v Oquendo,*147 AD2d 506; *People v Marcus,*133 AD2d 708; *cf., People v Bray,*99 AD2d 470; *People v Padgett,*145 AD2d 443). The fact that the evidence might be subject to an interpretation different from that credited by the jury, does not mean that the People failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Raphael,*134 AD2d 535).

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

*856We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment to Employment Agreement dated this 18th day of
February 2014 by and between Union Center National Bank (“Bank”) and Mr. Joseph D. Gangemi (“Executive”).


 


WHEREAS, Bank and Executive entered into an agreement
dated April 12, 2013 with respect to Executive’s employment with Bank (the “Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, Bank and Executive are desirous of entering
into an Amendment to the Agreement to clarify the payments, if any, to be made to Executive under certain circumstances.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


 


1) Notwithstanding anything in Paragraphs
8 or 9 of the Agreement to the contrary, with respect to any payments due Executive under Paragraph 8 or 9, which relate to “two
(2) times the annual salary” paid to Executive, such payment shall be calculated on the annual base salary in effect on December
31, 2013. For purposes of clarification, an Executive may receive a salary increase effective in calendar year 2014, but such increase
shall not be included for purposes of calculating payments due Executive under the Agreement.


 


2) In all other respects the Agreement is
hereby ratified and affirmed.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have set their hands
and seals on the date and year first above written.


 


	UNION CENTER NATIONAL BANK 	EXECUTIVE



 


 


 





	By /s/	Anthony C. Weagley	 	/s/	Joseph
D. Gangemi




	Anthony C. Weagley	 	Name: Joseph D. Gangemi
	Its:  President and CEO
----

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2003 — Translation Centre for the bodies of the European Union

(2005/C 78/10)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

http://www.cdt.eu.int

Table 1

Implementation of the budget for the financial year 2003

Table 2

Revenue and expenditure account for the financial years 2003 and 2002

Table 3

Balance sheet at 31 December 2003 and 31 December 2002 (1)

----

(1)  The use of the model proposed by the Commission resulted in balances being reallocated under existing headings.

(2)  This amount actually corresponds to fixed assets after depreciation as at 31 December 2002 (see table 3 of the report concerning the financial year 2002, OJ C 319, 30.12.2003, p. 29).

----
#### Floyd Lyon, Appellant, v Christina Lyon, Respondent.

In a matrimonial action, in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated October 26, 1987, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), dated July 6, 1989, as, upon granting the plaintiffs motion to reargue his prior motion to hold the defendant in contempt of court, adhered to its original determination.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

By notice of motion, the plaintiff sought to hold the defendant in contempt for her purported refusal to permit him to remove various items of personal property from the former marital residence. The plaintiff claimed that a stipulation of settlement as well as the parties’ judgment of divorce entitled *500him to those items. The Supreme Court denied his motion and, upon subsequently granting reargument, adhered to its original determination.

Both upon his original motion and upon reargument, the plaintiff failed to establish his entitlement, under any prior mandate of the court, to the items of personal property that he sought. Moreover, the plaintiff never explained why he did not remove the disputed items when, as it appears from the record, he was previously given access to the former marital residence by the defendant. Under such circumstances, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion to hold the defendant in contempt of court, and, upon reargument, properly adhered to its original determination *(see, Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection v Department of Envtl. Conservation,*70 NY2d 233; *Kutanovski v Kutanovski,*162 AD2d 662; *City of Poughkeepsie v Hetey,*121 AD2d 496). Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23

- 11821

Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________

AMY HENSON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus
WALKER COUNTY, LARRY UNDERWOOD, Former Sheriff of Walker County, individually and in his official capacity, SHERIFF, WALKER COUNTY, TRENT MCCLUSKEY, Former Jail Administrator, individually and in his official capacity, JOSHUA DILL, in his official capacity, USCA11 Case: 23-11821 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 10/04/2023 Page: 1 of 32 Opinion of the Court 23

- 11821

JIM UND ERWOOD, Former Walker County Sheriff,

Defendants

- Appellees,

WALKER COUNTY COMMISSION, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 7:20

- cv

- 00071

- LSC

____________________ Before J ILL P RYOR , G RANT , and A BUDU , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: The appellees’ motion to dismiss this appeal as untimely is
GRANTED. Because the district court entered its final order granting the remaining defendant’s motion for summary judgment in adocument apart from a memorandum opinion, the separate document requirement for judgments was satisfied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). Amy Henson was thus required to file a notice of appeal on or before January 13, 2023, which was 30 days following the date judgment was deemed entered on December 14, 2022. See 28 USCA11 Case: 23-11821 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 10/04/2023 Page: 2 of 323

- 11821 Opinion of the Court 3

U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (7)(A)(ii). However, Henson di d not file her notice of appeal until May 30, 2023.
Additionally, Henson did not seek relief from the appeal deadline under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) or4(a)(6), and there is no basis in the record for such relief. Accordingly, the notic e of appeal is untimely and cannot invoke our a ppellate jurisdiction. See Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin. , 606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010) (noting that the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement, and we cannot

e ntertain an appeal that is out of time).
Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED. USCA11 Case: 23-11821 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 10/04/2023 Page: 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFOMRATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-k AND IS QUALIFIED
     IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                        1,082,872
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  66,839
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                   348,496
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              1,631,275
<PP&E>                                        725,725
<DEPRECIATION>                                480,174
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              2,427,717
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         307,735
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      64,450
<OTHER-SE>                                 1,662,156
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               2,427,717
<SALES>                                       88,870
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             437,650
<CGS>                                        692,952
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              1,106,406
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (67,060)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            53,508
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (1,348,156)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (1,348,156)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                              (1,348,156)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.22)
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2015 (the Report) of Solar Senior Capital Ltd. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, MICHAEL S. GROSS, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant,
hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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 Registrant.



|      |  |                        
|----- |  | -----------------------
|      |  | /S/    MICHAEL S.
GROSS
|Name: |  | Michael S. Gross       
|Date: |  | May 5, 2015