alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 52 (Friday, March 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 15785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6361]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4057-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]


Kentucky; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4057-DR), dated March 6, 2012, 
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: March 9, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the Commonwealth of Kentucky is hereby amended to include the 
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely 
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of March 6, 2012.

    Bath, Campbell, Carroll, Grant, Martin, Montgomery, and Rowan 
Counties for Individual Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-6361 Filed 3-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### STATE ex rel. Joseph THOMPSON v. CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS, SECTION G, The Honorable Frank J. Shea, Judge, Presiding.

No. 88-KH-2511.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 27, 1989.

In re Thompson, Joseph; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory, remedial and review writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 268-238.

*Not considered.*Relator must first present his claims to the district court using the uniform application for post conviction relief.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2110 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2110

              To reduce temporarily the duty on Fluopyram.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   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 reduce temporarily the duty on Fluopyram.

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

SECTION 1. FLUOPYRAM.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00       N-{2-[3-Chloro-5-   2.2%         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          (trifluoromethyl)-                                                 31/2011.......
                          2-
                          pyridinyl]ethyl}-
                          alpha,alpha,alpha-
                          trifluoro-o-
                          toluamide
                          (Fluopyram) (CAS
                          No. 658066-35-4),
                          whether or not
                          mixed with
                          application
                          adjuvants
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          2933.39.21 or
                          3808.92.15)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### The Rensselaer and Saratoga Railroad Company, Appellant, *v.*The Delaware and Hudson Company, Respondent.

*Rensselaer & Saratoga R. R. Co.*v. *D. & H. Co.,*168 App. Div. 699, affirmed.

(Argued February 29, 1916;

decided March 21, 1916.)

Appeal from a judgment, entered August 26, 1915, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, which reversed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term overruling a demurrer to the complaint and directed a dismissal of the complaint. In 1871 the defendant became the lessee of all of the railroad lines of the plaintiff, and thereupon entered into the operation of such railroad Unes and has ever since operated them as a part of its railroad system. The defendant, as lessee, among other things, covenanted to operate and maintain all of the railroads of the lessor *693and to pay, by way of rental therefor, the interest upon certain mortgage bonds of. the lessor, and also dividends at a" certain rate upon the capital stock of the lessor, and also a sum not to exceed $1,000 annually to defray the expenses of the legal organization of the lessor; it also made covenants concerning taxes, and further guaranteed to pay directly to the bondholders and stockholders of the plaintiff said interest and dividends, and to stamp such guaranty upon the bonds and certificates of stock. This action is brought upon the theory that the plaintiff, having had an income tax assessed against it by the Federal government and having paid such tax, is entitled to recover the amount thereof from the defendant.

*George B. Wellington*for appellant.

*Walter Q. Noyes*and *W. D. Waldron*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Hiscock, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, Seabury and Pound, JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO  RULES 13A-15(E) AND 15D-15(E) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB of Birmingham Bloomfield Bancshares, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;4.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during
the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    [Reserved];c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; andd.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most
recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date: December 27, 2005/s/ Richard J. MillerRichard J. MillerChief Financial Officer
 21
EXHIBIT 31.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Humberto Bravo, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Placer del Mar,
     Ltd.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
     statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
     make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
     statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
     this quarterly report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
     material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
     flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this
     quarterly report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the registrant, including its
          consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
          entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
1st day of November, 2007.


/s/ Humberto Bravo
---------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**DYNAMIC HEALTH PRODUCTS, INC. -**

**LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES**

 

Pharma Labs Rx,Inc., a Florida corporation 

 

Herbal Health Products, Inc., a Floridacorporation 

 

Dynamic Life Products, Inc., a Florida corporation 

 

Online Meds Rx, Inc., a Florida corporation, and its subsidiary, Dynamic FinancialConsultants, LLC, a Florida limited liability company 

 

Bryan Capital LimitedPartnership, a Nevada limited partnership 

 

Pharma Labs Rx, Inc., a Nevadacorporation 

 

Bob O’Leary Health Food Distributor Co., Inc., a Commonwealthof Pennsylvania corporation 

 

Dynamic Marketing I, Inc., a Florida corporation

 

DYHP Acquisitions, Inc., a Florida corporation
#### Tommie GREEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-1302.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 8, 1988.

Tommie Green, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The order denying appellant’s rule 3.850 motion is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to attach those portions of the record supporting denial of the motion or to grant appellant an evidentiary hearing.

SMITH, C.J., and JOANOS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Ms.JulieArmitageBureauofAir,ChiefUNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCYREGION577WESTJACKSONBOULEVARDCHICAGO,IL60604-3590REPLYTOTHEATIENTIONOF:IllinoisEnvironmentalProtectionAgency1021NorthGrandAvenueEast--·----P.O.Box19276Springfield,Illinois62794-9276DearMs.Armitage:ThankyouforyourSeptember18,2015recommendationsregardingtheattainmentstatusareasinIllinoisunderthe2010sulfurdioxide(S02)nationalambientairqualitystandard(NAAQS).Asyouknow,EPAissubjecttoaMarch2,2015courtorderdirectingustopromulgateS02designationsfortheseareasundersection107oftheCleanAirActbyJuly2,2016.Specifically,wearerequiredtopromulgatedesignationsfortheseareasbecausetheycontainsourcesmeetingtheSOzemissionscriteriaidentifiedintheconsentdecree.Theinformationyouprovidedwillgreatlyhelpusmeetthisduty,andensureprotectionofpublichealthinIllinois.Inadditiontotheinformationyouhaveprovided,wehaverecentlyreceivedmodelingandrelatedinformationfromtheSierraClubthatisrelevanttoasubsetoftheareastobeaddressedbyJuly2,2016.Inyourstate,wehavereceivedinformationpertinenttotheareasnearthefollowingpowerplants:Newton,Joppa,andMarion.WeunderstandthatyouhavereceivedthisinformationdirectlyfromtheSierraClub.Pleaseletusknowifyouhaveanyquestionsabouttheinformationwehavereceivedorifyouneedanyadditionalinformation.IamwritingtosolicityourreviewoftheinformationthatSierraClubhasprovided,sothattheEPAcanbaseitsdesignationsdecisionsonthebestavailableinformation.TheCleanAirActprovidesfordesignationstobedevelopedthroughapartnershipofstateagenciesandEPA;however,wealsobelieveitisimportanttoconsidersignificantandrelevantinformationthatmembersofthepublicprovidetous.ConsistentwiththestructureoftheCleanAirAct,webelievethatthebestfirststepinaddressingthisinformationwouldbeforyouragencytoprovideitsreviewofthisinformation.SincetheSierraClub'srecommendationsdifferfromyourrecommendations,wewouldwelcomeyourcommentarygenerallyontheinformationaswellyourdetailedreviewoftheelementsofSierraClub'sanalysis.Totheextentpracticable,wewouldappreciatequantitativecomparisonsofdatausedinSierraClub'sanalysiscomparedtothedatausedinyouranalysis,tohelpusevaluatetheelementsofthetwoanalyses.WewouldappreciateyourreviewofSierraClub'sinformationbyNovember17,2015.Yourtimelyreviewwouldprovideusvaluableassistanceinourreviewofyourdesignationrecommendationsanddevelopmentofourintendeddesignations,whichweareaimingtocompletebytheendofJanuary2016.Wewillthenpublishnoticeofourintendeddesignationsforpubliccomment,and,asrequiredbytheCleanAirAct,promulgatefinaldesignationsnosoonerthan120daysaftergivingyounoticeofRecycled/Recyclable•PrintedwithVegetableOilBasedInkson100%RecycledPaper(100%Post-Consumer)them.PleasecontactmeorJohnSummerhaysofmystaffat312-886-6067oratsummerhays.john@epa.govifyouhaveanyquestionsaboutthisrequest.Sincerely,JohnMooneyAirProgramsBranch,Chief
Exhibit 32.1

 

**CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER****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 KeyOn Communications Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jonathan Snyder, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date:  | December 7, 2010 |   | By:    | /s/ Jonathan Snyder           |   |
|--------|------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
|   |             |   |   | Jonathan Snyder               |   |
|   |             |   |   | Chief Executive Officer       |   |
|   |             |   |   | (Principal Executive Officer) |   |

 

----
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Robert L. BORDELON.

No. 89-K-0840.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Bordelon, Robert L.; — Defendants); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CR88-0561; Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District, Div. “G”, No. 4210-87.

Prior report: La.App., 538 So.2d 1087.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., and CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.

LEMMON, J., concurs, not necessarily agreeing with the court of appeal.
#### Re ESTATE OF William Michael GODLEY, Deceased.

No. 87-0498.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 10, 1987.

Larry Klein of Klein *&*Beranek, P.A., West Palm Beach, for petitioner-estate of Godley.

Joseph A. Murphy, III, Fort Lauderdale, for respondents-Pauline Vanover and Vincent Hall.

*47PER CURIAM.

Petitioners seek a writ of prohibition. Respondent filed a motion in a probate proceeding to extend the time for filing independent actions on their claims against the estate. The motion was denied. A motion for rehearing was denied on October 18, 1986. Respondents did not appeal but filed a motion to reconsider, which was granted on November 25, 1986.

The petition for a writ of prohibition is granted. The trial court lost jurisdiction following denial of the motion for rehearing. Cf*. Shelby Mutual Insurance Company of Shelby Ohio v. Pearson,*236 So.2d 1 (Fla.1970); *Florida National Bank v. Domanska,*486 So.2d 1384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); *Markevitch v. Van Harren,*429 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), *appeal after remand,*447 So.2d 332, *rev. denied,*456 So.2d 1182 (Fla.1984).

We therefore quash the order of November 25, 1986.

DOWNEY, LETTS and STONE, JJ., concur.
#### Business and Community Coalition to Save Brownsville, Respondent, v New York City Department of Environmental Protection et al., Appellants.

In an action to enjoin the construction of a juvenile detention facility pending compliance with provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the New York City Environmental Quality Review Law, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated September 24, 1990, which, *inter alia,*denied their motion to dismiss the action and granted summary judgment against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint is granted.

We conclude that the Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment against the defendants on the ground that the March 17, 1989, Notice of Completion of Draft Environmental Impact Statement (hereinafter DEIS) "failed to specifically state where comments on the draft EIS will be received and failed to specify the public review and comment period as *587required by [the New York City Environmental Quality Review Law] § 10 (a) (1) (iv)”.

The perceived defect in the Notice of Completion cannot be deemed to be fatal or to require nullification of the entire environmental review procedure, which was otherwise undertaken in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (hereinafter SEQRA) and the New York City Environmental Quality Review Law *(see, Webster Assocs. v Town of Webster,*59 NY2d 220, 228-229; *Horn v International Business Machs. Corp.,*110 AD2d 87). As the plaintiff has conceded, its representatives participated in the review procedure and attended numerous public hearings, including the widely publicized and well-attended June 7, 1989, public hearing on the DEIS.

Significantly, there was a period in excess of three months, from the time the DEIS was completed, circulated, filed and made available for public inspection, for the purpose of receiving comments on the DEIS from interested organizations and the public. The record was kept open for an additional 10 days to receive written comment. Furthermore, in accordance with the statutory regulations, the final EIS summarized and responded to the comments and objections raised during the public comment period and was filed and made available for public review in the same manner as the DEIS. As the Supreme Court noted, "There is little doubt that the practical effect of defendant’s failure to include the language mandated by CEQR [City Environmental Quality Review Law] § 10 (a) (1) (iv) in its Notice of Completion was inconsequential”.

Given the extensive planning and consideration which has been accorded the subject project, as well as the demonstrated need for it, the alleged procedural defects were not fatal. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed.

In view of our determination herein, the defendants’ argument with respect to the need to convert this action to a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 need not be addressed. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Balletta, JJ., concur.