alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            
            
            U.S. Air Force
                    U.S. Air Force
        Search
                    Search AF.mil:
                        Search
                Search AF.mil:
                    Search
    Home





    News
    
        Commentaries

    Features

    Photos

    Art

    Air Force TV

    Radio

    Week in Photos

    Coronavirus Disease 2019





    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Adjunct Professors

    Fact Sheets

    Commander's Call Topics    
        CCT Archive

    CSAF Reading List    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    2015 CSAF Reading List

    2014 CSAF Reading List

    2013 CSAF Reading List

    2012 CSAF Reading List

    2011 CSAF Reading List

    2010 CSAF Reading List

    2009 CSAF Reading List

    2008 CSAF Reading List

    2007 CSAF Reading List

    2006 CSAF Reading List

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    The Book

    Speeches Archive    
        Former AF Top 3 Viewpoints and Speeches

    Air Force Warrior Games 2019

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Desert Storm 25th Anniversary

    DoD Warrior Games

    Portraits in Courage    
        Portraits In Courage Vol. I

    Portraits In Courage Vol. II

    Portraits In Courage Vol. III

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IV

    Portraits In Courage Vol. V

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VI

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VIII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IX

    Portraits In Courage Vol. X

    Chapman MoH

    The Air Force We Need

    Events 2020

    Focus on Priorities





    AF Sites
    
        Social Media Sites

    Site Registration





    AF Content Management





    Careers  
 Home
  News
  Photos
 Air Force Photos Search
 Search
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Full Size (2.42 MB)
 
 oef Staff Sgt. Evelyn Chavez English teaching Staff Sgt. Linette Nosim tutor volunteer Bagram Airfield LRS Afghanistan
 Photo Gallery
 Quick Links
                            Join the Air ForceSite MapQuestionsContact UsRSSFOIAIGAF SitesAccessibilityEEOLink DisclaimerStrategic APRSuicide PreventionSAPRUSA.govNo FEAR Act
                    Connect
                    Official United States Air Force Website
                        Subscribe to USAF News and Information
          Submit
Exhibit 32.1

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 on Form 10-Q of Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd. (the Company) for the period
ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Simon Pedder, President and Chief Executive Officer, hereby 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; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the
periods presented in the Report.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Simon PedderSimon PedderPresident and Chief Executive OfficerJuly 27, 2010
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2113 

To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures containing 2,4,6-Tripropyl1,3,5,2,4,6-trioxatriphosphinane 2,4,6-trioxide and organic solvents. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. BOND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures containing 

2,4,6-Tripropyl-1,3,5,2,4,6-trioxatriphosphinane 2,4,6-trioxide and organic solvents. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MIXTURES CONTAINING 2,4,6-TRIPROPYL4 1,3,5,2,4,6-TRIOXATRIPHOSPHINANE 2,4,6-TRI5 OXIDE AND ORGANIC SOLVENTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2113 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Mixtures containing 2,4,6- 

Tripropyl-1,3,5,2,4,6- 

trioxatriphosphinane 2,4,6- 

trioxide (CAS No. 68957– 

94–8) and organic solvents 

(provided for in subheading 

3824.90.92) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 21.1



               Subsidiaries of Computer Management Sciences, Inc.






1.   Name:  MIS Software Development, Inc.
     State of Incorporation:  Florida
     Name Under Which Subsidiary Does Business:  MIS Software Development, Inc.

2.   Name:  Summit Computer Services, Inc.
     State of Incorporation:  North Carolina
     Name Under Which Subsidiary Does Business:  Summit Computer Services, Inc.

3.   Name:  Miaco Corporation
     State of Incorporation:  Colorado
     Name Under Which Subsidiary Does Business: Miaco Corporation

4.   Name:  CMSI Management Company
     State of Incorporation:  Florida
     Name Under Which Subsidiary Does Business:  CMSI Management Company
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                          18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                           AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Annual Report of Alternate Marketing Networks,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year
ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report"), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company does
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the knowledge of the
undersigned:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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 results of operations of the
Company as of the date(s) and for the period(s) indicated.


     Date: March 31, 2003         By:     /s/Sandra J. Smith
                                  Name:   Sandra J. Smith
                                  Title:  Chief Financial Officer
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: March 17, 2016 520560

________________________________ In the Matter of COREY DAVIS, Petitioner, v ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: January 19, 2016 Before: Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose and Lynch, JJ.

__________ Michael Cassidy, Prisoners' Legal Services of New York, Plattsburgh, for petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Following an assault on an inmate in a prison bathroom by several inmates, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with assaulting an inmate, violent conduct, creating a disturbance, possessing a weapon and gang activity. At the tier III disciplinary hearing, confidential testimony was submitted in camera positively identifying petitioner as one of the attackers and related confidential documents were received into evidence. Petitioner was found guilty of all charges except the gang-2- 520560

activity charge and a penalty was imposed. The determination was upheld on administrative appeal and petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. The misbehavior report together with the confidential testimony and documents considered by the Hearing Officer in camera provide substantial evidence to support the finding of guilt (see Matter of McCain v Fischer, 104 AD3d 1009, 1009 [2013]). Contrary to petitioner's contentions, we are satisfied that the Hearing Officer was able to independently assess the credibility and reliability of the confidential information given the details provided regarding the attack, as well as the in camera testimony of one of the confidential sources who the Hearing Officer concluded had been truthful and believable (see Matter or Clark v Annucci, 128 AD3d 1254, 1254-1255 [2015]; Matter of Rosario v Annucci, 127 AD3d 1477, 1478 [2015]). Petitioner's denial that he was involved in the attack created a credibility issue to be resolved by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Perkins v Annucci, 129 AD3d 1421, 1421 [2015]). Moreover, the charges of which he was found guilty were not dependent upon the gang activity charge, which the Hearing Officer found had not been substantiated; there was nothing inconsistent about finding him guilty of participating in the attack and possessing a weapon but not guilty of gang activity (see Matter of Jackson v Goord, 8 AD3d 852, 853 [2004]). We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find that they lack merit. Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose and Lynch, JJ., concur.-3- 520560

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statement of TransPro, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 33-80871) of our report dated
February 14, 2000, relating to the financial statements, which appears in the
Annual Report to Stockholders, and which is incorporated by reference in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of
our report dated February 14, 2000 relating to the financial statement schedule,
which appears in this Form 10-K.


/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Hartford, Connecticut
March 15, 2000
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 14, 2017

t0411

Order 

Clerk

April 14, 2017

154982

ROBERT G. FLORIAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154982

COA: 328460

MCAC: 12-000124

GARY GRIMM, d/b/a G & G LOGGING, LLC,

and TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellants, 

and

SILICOSIS, DUST DISEASE & LOGGING

INDUSTRY COMPENSATION FUND,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the stipulation signed by counsel for the parties agreeing to 

the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the application for 

leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 47 (Friday, March 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 14410]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5741]



[[Page 14410]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Approval of INTERTEK USA, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a commercial 
gauger.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, 
Intertek USA, Inc., 1020 Holland Sylvania Road, Holland, OH 43528, has 
been approved to gauge petroleum, petroleum products, organic chemicals 
and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the 
provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to 
conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances 
from the entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. 
Alternatively, inquires regarding the specific gauger service this 
entity is approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be 
sent to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8fecedffa1e3eeede7fecfebe7fca1e8e0f9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9cfffeecb2f0fdfef4eddcf8f4efb2fbf3ea">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference the Web site listed below 
for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited 
laboratories: http://cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/automated/labs_scientific_svcs/commercial_gaugers/gaulist.ctt/gaulist.pdf.

DATES: The approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as commercial gauger became 
effective on July 26, 2011. The next triennial inspection date will be 
scheduled for July 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mike McCormick, Laboratories and 
Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-
1060.

    Dated: February 29, 2012.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. 2012-5741 Filed 3-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### John N. Grasso, Appellant, v Kelly M. Angerami, Respondent.

Weiss, J.

Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Doran, J.), entered April 17, 1990 in Schenectady County, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) from an order of said court, entered October 26, 1990 in Schenectady County, which denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

On October 10, 1983, plaintiff’s motor vehicle was struck from behind triggering this personal injury action against defendant. Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing that plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Plaintiff’s proof in opposition con*982sisted of his affidavit and an unsworn letter-report from his doctor which included copies of two pages of office notes. Finding this proof to be legally insufficient in form, Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion and dismissed the complaint. Immediately thereafter plaintiff procured a letter-report from his doctor in a proper sworn format, but delayed moving for renewal or reargument for five months without an excuse. This motion was denied.*

Plaintiff appeals seeking an exception to the rule that medical evidence to establish a serious injury must be in admissible form *(see, Stowell v Huntley,*154 AD2d 810, 811; *see also, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557). The unsworn doctor’s report and office notes initially submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendant’s motion do not suffice to rebut the sworn opinion of defendant’s medical expert *(see, Rohr v Hoyt,*159 AD2d 980). We see no reason to depart from the long-established rule.

Finally, to the extent that plaintiff characterized his second motion as one for renewal based upon the medical report which had been prepared in evidentiary form, we find that Supreme Court’s denial was proper. Plaintiff neglected to offer a valid excuse for his failure to have provided the medical report in proper form in the first instance or for his delay of five months in making the motion after it was put in the proper form *(see, Foley v Roche,*68 AD2d 558, 568).

Orders affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr. and Harvey, JJ., concur.

*

 To the extent that plaintiffs motion may have been for reargument, we note that the denial of a motion for reargument is not appealable *(Matter of Kempf v Town of Esopus,*92 AD2d 1076, 1077).
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Keewatin Windpower Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended February 28, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

     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 results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: April 14, 2006


/s/ Chris Craddock
-------------------------------------------
Chris Craddock, President and C.E.O.
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Allan B. Rosenberg, Respondent, v Nyna Rosenberg, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beau-champ Ciparick, J.), entered July 20, 1990, which, upon petitioner’s habeas corpus petition, granted sole custody of the two children of the parties to petitioner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On September 21, 1989, without the knowledge and consent of petitioner-father, respondent-mother flew with the two children to California and initiated divorce proceedings. By writ of habeas corpus, respondent was compelled to return to New York for a hearing to determine custody. This Court has already determined that the New York County Supreme Court properly exercised jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 75-d (1) (d) *(People ex rel. Rosenberg v Rosenberg,*160 AD2d 327). Respondent now challenges the court’s determination that it is in the best interests of the children that sole and exclusive custody reside with petitioner, with open, unsupervised and liberal visitation rights accorded the respondent.

Recognizing that the trial court is in the best position to evaluate the relevant factors in making a custody determination, we find no error in the trial court’s award of custody to petitioner *(Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167). The record reveals that the court made a thorough review of all of the relevant factors, including the extent to which each parent has contributed to the educational and emotional growth of the children, and the frequency with which the parents have attended their needs, as well as the findings of the court-appointed psychiatrist as to who is the more stable and reliable parent. We have considered the other issues raised by appellant and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ross and Smith, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 25, 2013

s1118 

# Order

Clerk November 25, 2013

147242

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIG AN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147242

COA: 308224

Crawford CC: 11

- 003200

- FC

AVERY ROBERT PARKER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 18, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# L_2006062EN.01001301.xml

| 3.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 62/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 62/13

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 371/2006

of 2 March 2006

granting no refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 582/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 582/2004 of 26 March 2004 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds of skimmed milk powder (2), provides for a permanent tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 582/2004 of 26 March 2004 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds of skimmed milk powder (2), provides for a permanent tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 580/2004 of 26 March 2004 establishing a tender procedure concerning export refunds for certain milk products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 28 February 2006. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 580/2004 of 26 March 2004 establishing a tender procedure concerning export refunds for certain milk products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 28 February 2006.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the permanent tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 582/2004, for the tendering period ending on 28 February 2006, no refund shall be granted for the product and destinations referred to in Article 1(1) of that Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 March 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 90, 27.3.2004, p. 67. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1239/2005 (OJ L 200, 30.7.2005, p. 32).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 90, 27.3.2004, p. 58. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1814/2005 (OJ L 292, 8.11.2005, p. 3).

3

---