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.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

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

# 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
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

 

I, Shaun Passley, Chief Executive Officer and Principal FinancialOfficer of Epazz, Inc., a Illinois corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1) The report on Form 10-Q/A of Epazz, Inc. (the "Registrant")for the quarter ended June 30, 2014 (the "Report") which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Date: October 2, 2014

 

 

By:*/s/ Shaun Passley*

Shaun Passley,

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Brian R. Riffle, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

 

1.       I have reviewed thisAmendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of KonaTel, Inc.; and

 

2.       Based upon my knowledge,this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report.

 

4.       TheRegistrant’s other certifying officer 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Registrant and have:

 

a)       designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)       designedsuch internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals;

 

c)       evaluatedthe effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and

 

d)       disclosedin this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.       TheRegistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions);

 

a)       allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and

 

b)       anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              0
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0
<PP&E>                                         10,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 10,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                    7,323,006
<OTHER-SE>                                     10,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   10,000
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     0
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                        0
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0


</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. Robert POLLARD v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 86-KH-2228.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 12, 1988.

In re Judge Miriam G. Waltzer; applying for clarification of previous order, 514 So. 2d 117, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “A”, No. 309-706.

Granted. The trial judge should reinstate probation, providing relator with a certificate setting forth the conditions of his probation, as required by LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 895, and granting relator sufficient time and opportunity, considering all of the circumstances, to comply with those conditions.
# • ·11/01/93 RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 86 Removal of Strontium Sulfide from the

.List of Hazardous Wastes; Technical Amendment 56 FR 7567-7568 February 25, 1991 (RCRA Cluster I, Non-HSWA Rule)**Not~:** 1) Because of an error in the amendatory language in the rule (53 FR 43881, October 31, 1988, Revision Checklist 57) removing strontium sulfide fromthe list of hazardous wastes, this chemical was not removed from §261.33 or Part 261, Appendix VIII. This technical amendment. corrects that error by removing strontium sulfide from the two lists. States which have not adopted the changes addressed byRevision Checklist 57, but intend to remove strontium sulfide from their lists of hazardoUs waste, are stronglyencouraged to adopt these technical amendments at the same time the Revision Checklist 57provisions are adopted. States already adopting the Revision Checklist 57 changes are encouraged to adopt the Revision Checklist 86 amendments as soon as possible. 2) This is a conditionaLLy optional checklist. States choosing to not remove strontium sulfide fromtheir hazardous waste lists should not adopt the changes addressed by this present checklist. However, those States which choose to remove this waste must adopt the changes addressed by Revision Checklist 86 to assure that strontium sulfide has been properly removed fromthe State's hazardous waste lists and appendices.
. FEDERAL REQUIREMENT FEDERAL RCRA CITATION ANALOGOUS STATE CITATION STATE ANALOG IS: MORE EQUIV- STRIN-' ALENT GENT BROADER IN SCOPE PART 261

- IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE SUBPART 0 - LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES

- WAC 173-303 

# • DISCARDED COMMERCIAL CHEMICAL PRODUCTS, OFF-SPECIFICATION SPECIES, CONTAINER RESIDUES, AND SPILL RESIDUES THEREOF 

### t remove listing as shown below 261.33(e) 9903 X Thefollowing'waste has been removed from the 261.33(e) list: "p107
...1314-96-1. ••Strontium sulfide SrS" APPENDIX VIII TO PART 261 HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS 

### t remove listing as shown below Appendix VII I 9904 X Thefollowing listing has been removed fromAppendix VIII: "Strontium sulfide
...Strontium sulfide SrS
...1314-96-1. ••P107" 

# • February 25, 1991 - Page 1 of 1
#### STATE ex rel. Melvin R. MURPHY v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 89-KH-0309.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 17, 1989.

In re Murphy, Melvin R.;—Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 327-731.

Denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**WILLIAM ARMSTEAD AND TULLY J.**

**SPEAKER AND BARBARA**

**KRASSENSTEIN AND GAIL OBER AND**

**ANNYAH HASLER AND ROGER**

**HASLER AND BERNARD BONDI AND**

**ROSEANNE STAGNO ADAMS AND**

**JOVIDA HILL AND SCENIC**
**PHILADELPHIA,**

**Petitioners**

**v.**

**ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF**

**THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA AND CITY**

**OF PHILADELPHIA AND FRANKLIN**
**INSTITUTE,**

**Respondents :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 261 EAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from**

**the Order of the Commonwealth Court**

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 8th day of December, 2015, the Petition for Al lowance of Appeal** 

**is** DENIED

**.**
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2286 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Acetoacet-p-Anisidine. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. BROWN (for himself and Mr. VOINOVICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Acetoacetp-Anisidine. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ACETOACET-P-ANISIDINE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.25.18 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Acetoacet-p-Anisidine) is amended by striking the date in 

7 the effective column period and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

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

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


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2286 IS

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2640
HOBERT A. SCHELL, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (95-0845-BLA) Submitted: December 12, 1995 Decided: March 19, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hobert A. Schell, Petitioner Pro Se. Patricia May Nece, Rita A. Roppolo, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Douglas Allan Smoot, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision and order affirming the administrative law judge's denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1995). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Schell v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs , No. 95-0845-BLA (B.R.B. July 31, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### In re Valerye L. JUDD.

No. 87-OB-1340.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1987.

In re Judd, Valerye L.; applying for permission to take the Louisiana State Bar Examination.

It is ordered that relator be permitted to take the July, 1987 bar exam.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16260-16261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6809]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-12-007]


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:  United States International Trade 
Commission.

[[Page 16261]]


Time and Date:  March 20, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.

Place:  Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

Status: Open to the public.

Matters to be Considered:
    1. Agendas for future meetings: none.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Vote in Inv. No. 731-TA-472 (Third Review) (Silicon Metal from 
China). The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its 
determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce 
on or before March 30, 2012.
    5. Outstanding action jackets: none.
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 13, 2012.
James R. Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-6809 Filed 3-16-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE;P
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Nathaniel DOWL, Jr.

No. 89-KH-0304.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 17, 1989.

In re Dowl, Nathaniel Jr.;—Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 88KW-2437; Parish of Orleans, *1175Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 289-576.

Denied.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2445 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather upper footwear. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. BROWNBACK introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather upper 

footwear. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN LEATHER UPPER FOOTWEAR. 

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

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2445 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Other footwear with outer 

soles of rubber, plastic, leather, or composition leather 

and uppers of leather, not 

covering the ankle, valued at 

more than $2.50 per pair, 

other than house slippers, 

tennis shoes, basketball 

shoes, and the like, the foregoing for persons other than 

women (provided for in subheading 6403.99.90) ............. 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 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs February 1, 2006

IN RE GIORGIANNA H., STUART H., SABRINA H., SAVANNAH H., VICTORIA H.,

BENJAMIN H., & SARAHANNA H.

 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Perry County

No. 3358 Robert E. Lee Davies, Judge

No. M2005-01697-COA-R3-PT - Filed March 21, 2006

WILLIAM B. CAIN, J., concurring.

I adhere to my longstanding view that a “preponderance of the evidence” standard and a

“clear and convincing evidence” standard are incompatible with each other and cannot be reconciled

either in the trial court or in appellate courts. The effort to make these standards compatible, as

asserted in Ray v. Ray, 83 S.W.2d 726 (Tenn.Ct.App.2001), and its progeny are in my view incorrect

for reasons stated at length in Estate of Acuff v. O’Linger, 56 S.W.3d 527 (Tenn.Ct.App.2001) and

In re Z.J.S. and M.J.P., No. M2002-02235-COA-R3-JV, filed June 3, 2003 (Tenn.Ct.App.2003-

Cain, concurring).

Regardless of this disagreement, the exhaustive and scholarly opinion authored by Judge

Koch for the majority discloses a case that would withstand scrutiny under any definition of clear,

cogent and convincing evidence. I therefore concur in the judgment.

___________________________________ 

WILLIAM B. CAIN, JUDGE
#### M.W. and A.W., Petitioners-Appellees, v. D.G., Respondent-Appellant.

No. 84CA1011.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

July 25, 1985.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 5, 1985.

Certiorari Denied Dec. 16, 1985.

*1175Clarence 0. Bakken, Denver, for petitioner-appellee M.W.

Doris E. Burd, Denver, Guardian ad Li-tem for Minor Child, A.W.

Thomas A. Wallace, Denver, for respondent-appellant.

VAN CISE, Judge.

M.W. (the mother) brought this action seeking a determination of paternity under the Uniform Parentage Act, § 19-6-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1978 Repl.Vol. 8). D.G. appeals a summary judgment which determined that he is the biological father of A.W. (the child). We affirm.

The mother was married to another at the time the child was conceived and born. At no time was D.G. married to the mother. D.G. asserts that because the mother’s husband is presumed to be the child’s father pursuant to § 19-6-105(l)(a), C.R.S. (1978 Repl.Vol. 8), a genuine issue of material fact remained. We disagree.

The presumption of a husband’s paternity is rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence of non-access during the period when conception occurred. *See*§ 19-6-105(2), C.R.S. (1978 Repl.Vol. 8); *Vasquez v. Esquibel,*141 Colo. 5, 346 P.2d 293 (1959). “Clear and convincing evidence” means evidence which is stronger than a “preponderance of the evidence,” and which is highly probable and free from serious or substantial doubt. *CJI-Civ.2d*3:2 (1984 Supp.).

Here, the mother submitted an affidavit in conjunction with a motion for summary judgment which stated in part that she had not seen her husband since January 1978, that the child was conceived during September 1979, that she had sexual intercourse with D.G. through the months of August, September, and October 1979, and that D.G. was the only man with whom she had sexual intercourse during the summer and fall of that year. In addition, the affidavit of a certified immunologist was submitted which stated that, as a result of pertinent testing, there was a 98.6 percent probability that D.G. is the biological father of the child. It thus became incumbent upon D.G. to present specific facts by affidavit or otherwise which identified a genuine issue of material fact for trial. *See*C.R.C.P. 56(e); *People in Interest of F.L.G.,*39 Colo.App. 194, 563 P.2d 379 (1977).

D.G.’s affidavit merely noted that a presumption exists by virtue of the wife’s marital status and offered no refuting facts. As a result, the mother’s affidavit stood unrebutted and free from doubt. We conclude that the affidavit of the mother plus the immunological test results constituted a clear and convincing showing that D.G. was the child’s father. And, since D.G. presented no evidentiary challenge to that showing, summary judgment was properly granted.

Judgment affirmed.

PIERCE and STERNBERG, JJ., concur.