alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 159

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns

3 at the close of business on Wednesday, November 1, 2000,

4 or Thursday, November 2, 2000, on a motion offered pur5 suant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader

6 or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon

7 on Tuesday, November 14, 2000, or until such time on

8 that day as may be specified by its Majority Leader or

9 his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until

10 noon on the second day after Members are notified to reas11 semble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,

12 whichever occurs first; and that when the House adjourns

13 on the legislative day of Wednesday, November 1, 2000,

14 or Thursday, November 2, 2000, on a motion offered pur15 suant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader

16 or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on

17 Monday, November 13, 2000, or until noon on the second

18 day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to
2

SCON 159 ES

1 section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs

2 first.

3 SEC. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the

4 Speaker of the House, acting jointly after consultation

5 with the Minority Leader of the Senate and the Minority

6 Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of the Sen7 ate and House, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in

8 their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Passed the Senate November 1 (legislative day, September 22), 2000.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 159

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess

of the Senate and a conditional adjournment ofthe House of Representatives.
#### Frank CACCIATORE, Jr. and Patricia Cacciatore, his wife, Appellants, v. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, Appellee.

No. 87-471.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 30, 1987.

Harry M. Hobbs, Tampa, for appellants.

Suzanne E. LaBerge and James H. Thompson, Asst. Co. Attys., Tampa, for appellee.

RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.

The Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners denied the Cacciatores’ petition to rezone a parcel of land. The Cacciatores sought a writ of certiorari from the circuit court for Hillsborough County. That court denied the petition for certiorari, finding the Board’s decision fairly debatable. This appeal followed.

Although this matter was brought before us as an appeal, the proper vehicle to bring this matter to our attention would have been by a petition for writ of certiorari. Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(b)(2)(B). *City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant,*419 So.2d 624 (Fla. 1982). *See also Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners v. Longo,*505 So.2d 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); *Sarasota County v. Purser,*476 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

We, therefore, treat this appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari and hold the circuit court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in either substance or procedure.

Certiorari denied.

LEHAN and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000846538
<NAME>                        ALLOU HEALTH & BEAUTY CARE, INC.

<S>                             <C>               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                MAR-31-1999         MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                   APR-01-1998         APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                     MAR-31-1999         MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                           400,090             46,675
<SECURITIES>                     0                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                    51,778,415          44,489,386
<ALLOWANCES>                     1,615,965           371,475
<INVENTORY>                      122,917,911         112,530,659
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 211,039,574         168,375,963
<PP&E>                           8,085,505           7,194,116
<DEPRECIATION>                   4,245,599           3,580,893
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   219,907,381         178,384,296
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            158,847,103         124,416,943
<BONDS>                          0                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>            0                   0
<PREFERRED>                      0                   0
<COMMON>                         6,539               5,770
<OTHER-SE>                       60,329,505          52,607,121
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     219,907,381         178,384,296
<SALES>                          337,389,261         301,756,467
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 337,389,261         301,756,467
<CGS>                            291,681,302         262,600,862
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    36,291,959          23,775,314
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 (3,009,098)         (13,168)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                 0                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               10,176,243          8,482,859
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  2,248,855           6,910,600
<INCOME-TAX>                     901,000             2,630,390
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              1,347,855           4,280,210
<DISCONTINUED>                   0                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                  0                   0
<CHANGES>                        0                   0
<NET-INCOME>                     0                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                    .22                 .74
<EPS-DILUTED>                    .20                 .72


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2****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 NYMAGIC, INC. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for theperiod ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas J. Iacopelli, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company./s/ Thomas J. Iacopelli Thomas J. Iacopelli
Re: EPA's GHG Final Rule 

Ed Nam to: William Charmley, Antonio Fernandez, Brian Nelson, 

Karl Simon 03/24/2010 03:32 PM

Cc: Robin Moran, Roberts French

I'm ok with this but it might need some more detail, plus karl might have something to say. It's similar to 

an idea we had earlier which was to do a tech amendment if a new test procedure was complete before 

the next rule. 

But couldn't we just do the tech amendment as part of the next rule anyway? This makes this change 

moot.

Ed

William Charmley

 ----- Original Message -----

 From: William Charmley

 Sent: 03/24/2010 03:12 PM EDT

 To: Ed Nam; Antonio Fernandez; Brian Nelson

 Cc: Robin Moran; Roberts French

 Subject: Fw: EPA's GHG Final Rule

Ed - what do we think of this suggestion from Frank Krich at Chrysler?

----- Forwarded by William Charmley/AA/USEPA/US on 03/24/2010 03:11 PM -----

From: fak6@chrysler.com

To: William Charmley/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 03/24/2010 03:07 PM

Subject: EPA's GHG Final Rule

Bill,

The purpose of this e-mail is to follow-up on my voice mail to you today. It would be appreciated if you 

could include the following statement with regard to the idle test in the GHG final rule. I know this is at the 

11th hour but hopefully this minor change can still be incorporated before the rule is signed by the EPA 

Administrator on March 31 or April 1, 2010. The Alliance comments stated that we would work with EPA 

to develop an alternative method. The suggested statement below would provide flexibility in the event 

that an acceptable alternative is developed for the idle test without requiring a rulemaking. I view this as a 

win-win for EPA and the manufacturers should this happen. EPA has the authority to accept or reject the 

alternative. Here is my suggested wording. Thanks for you consideration.

"A manufacturer may request Administrator approval to use an alternative test procedure or methodology" 

or words to that effect.

Best regards,

Frank A. Krich

Senior Planning Engineer

Chrysler Group LLC

CIMS 482-00-71

800 Chrysler Drive
Auburn Hills, Michigan 48326-2757

E-mail: fak6@chrysler.com

Phone: (248) 576-5497

Fax: (248) 576-7928
#### STATE of Louisiana v. John K. SNYDER.

No. 86-KK-1126.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 1, 1986.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 8,1986.

In re Snyder, John K.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. K86-310; Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 214405.

Granted. The Court of Appeal judgment is reversed and the trial court ruling is reinstated. The trial court’s fact-finding and credibility evaluation were not clearly wrong.

WATSON, J., would grant the writ and hear arguments.
#### Clifford FOX, Appellant, v. BARNETT RECOVERY CORPORATION, etc. et al., Appellees.

No. 88-1331.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

June 15, 1989.

Bruce A. Nants, of Law Offices of Bruce A. Nants, Orlando, for appellant.

Robert J. Winicki, Brett P. Abner, and Barry L. Anderson of Mahoney, Adams, Milam, Surface & Grimsley, Jacksonville, for appellee Barnett Recovery Corp., f/k/a State Wide Collection Corp.

*1158PER CURIAM.

Appellee collection agency sued appellant debtor on a promissory note which provided that the maker (debtor) was liable for a reasonable attorney’s fee if the note was placed with an attorney for collection. Appellant debtor filed a “class action” counterclaim alleging that a collection letter sent by appellee collection agency to appellant debtor contained a threat within the meaning of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, section 559.72(9), Florida Statutes.1 The trial court dismissed the counterclaim on the basis that it failed to state a cause of action as a matter of law. Appellant debtor appeals and argues that the collection letter contained a threat because in the letter the appellee collection agency threatened to “assess” an attorney’s fee in the specified amount of $350 if the debtor did not settle the claim with the collection agency.

We agree with the trial judge that the counterclaim does not state a cause of action because, as a matter of law, the collection letter, the relevant part of which is set forth below,2 does not constitute a wrongful threat within the meaning of section 559.72(9), Florida Statutes.

AFFIRMED.

COBB, COWART and DANIEL, JJ., concur.

1

. Section 559.72(9), Florida Statutes, provides that in the collection of consumer claims, no person shall "claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a consumer claim when such person knows that the claim is not legitimate or some other legal right when such person knows that the right does not exist; ...”

2

. The letter reads in relevant part:

> I have tried to contact you numerous times by phone and by mail concerning your balance of $4,652.00 with Barnett Bank.

> By not contacting me I will have to assume you do not want to make arrangements to take care of this account. I will then have no choice but to send this to our attorney and this action will increase your balance to $5,002.00 plus court costs and interest.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7959

DENNIS E. YARRELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SERGEANT THOMAS; SUPERINTENDENT GINN, sued

individually and in their official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District

Judge. (CA-95-944-5-BO)

Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 12, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis E. Yarrell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Yarrell

v. Thomas, No. CA-95-944-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Nov. 6, 1995). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
CANNON RESOURCES, LLC 

3863 Spinach Creek Rd. Fairbanks, AK 99709 907-374-9799 

May 21, 2014 

Docket Management Facility 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Reference: No. FAA-2014-0107 

To Whom It May Concern: 

We are writing in support of the Petition for Exemption, Docket Number FAA-2014-0107, wherein the Petitioner, 

Everts Air, seeks relief from certain requirements of inter alia §121.436 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations. 

The recently enacted regulation requires co-pilots (second in command) hired or promoted to that position after 31 

July 2013 to be certified as captains (pilot in command) with respect to the aircraft type rating. This regulation will 

also require all pilots serving as second in command to be certified in this manner after 01 January 2016. 

The petitioner, Tatonduk Outfitters, Ltd., d/b/a Everts Air provides essential services in a unique environment. 

There are no simulator training devices for several of the aircraft they operate, including the DC-6 and C-46. 

Thus, all training must be conducted in the airplanes, in flight. It is noteworthy that Everts Air does not seek relief 

from the requirement that all pilots must possess airline transport licenses. 

This mandate will not result in an increased level of safety, rather a lower standard of safety as the more critical 

and technically demanding captain’s maneuvers will now be required of the second in command candidate. Historically, training in aircraft rather than simulators has proven dangerous, particularly in training lesser experienced 

pilots in emergency and abnormal procedures and maneuvers. This element represents an increased risk. 

When this rule was promulgated by Congress, there was an assumption made that all airline training was accomplished in a simulator. The simulator represents a safe and relatively low cost training environment. The cost of 

training a pilot in a flight simulator is on the order of $14,000.00. The cost of training the same pilot for the type 

rating course in the airplane is nearly ten times that, and represents a cost that Everts Air will have to pass along to 

us as the customer. 

We are deeply concerned that this cost will drive the petitioner to withdraw from several markets, leaving noncertificated and/or fewer safe operators. Their alternative is to increase the cost, making arctic operations impractical for industry, including aviation, thus increasing the cost of living in rural communities. 

The §121 air carrier has proven to be the safest supply chain for business, industry and residential needs in outlying areas. We agree with the petitioner’s position that training to the level that was in place before the enactment 

of 14 CFR 121.436 represents continued service at the highest standard of safety. 

In the interest of air safety and viable logistics options for rural communities, we are in favor of supporting the 

Petition for Exemption, Docket Number FAA-2014-0107. 

Sincerely, 

Philip Kib Cannon 

Cannon Resources, LLC 

kib@cannonresources.com 

907-978-4757 

 Philip K Cannon
---

---

Exhibit 32.2

# SECTION 906
CERTIFICATION

The undersigned hereby certifies that
the Quarterly Report on From 10-Q of Israel Growth Partners Acquisition Corp. (the
Registrant) for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the Registrant.

|Dated: December 10, 2007 |  | /s/ Dror Gad
Dror GadChief Financial Officer
|------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------------



---

---
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





    Contact Us  
 Home
  News
  Photos
 Air Force Photos Search
 Search
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Full Size (1.21 MB)
 
 1CTCS allied nations Alaska U.S. Air Force Korea ROK JTAC ROKAF Red Flag-Alaska Red Flag Alaska 19 RFA19 Allied partners Red Flag-Alaska 19-2 Repbulic of Korea
 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
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 199 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 199

Designating the week of October 24, 1999, through October 30, 1999, and 
 the week of October 22, 2000, through October 28, 2000, as ``National 
              Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 7, 1999

   Mr. Reed (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Reid, Mr. 
   Levin, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
 Sarbanes, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Chafee, 
Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Graham, 
 Mr. Durbin, Mr. DeWine, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. 
  Smith of Oregon, Mr. Robb, Mr. Frist, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Abraham, Mr. 
  Bryan, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Specter, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Bayh, and Mrs. 
 Feinstein) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

                            October 19, 1999

        Committee discharged; considered, amended, and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Designating the week of October 24, 1999, through October 30, 1999, and 
 the week of October 22, 2000, through October 28, 2000, as ``National 
              Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Week''.

Whereas lead poisoning is a leading environmental health hazard to children in 
        the United States;
Whereas according to the United States Center for Disease Control and 
        Prevention, 890,000 preschool children in the United States have harmful 
        levels of lead in their blood;
Whereas lead poisoning may cause serious, long-term harm to children, including 
        reduced intelligence and attention span, behavior problems, learning 
        disabilities, and impaired growth;
Whereas children from low-income families are 8 times more likely to be poisoned 
        by lead than those from high income families;
Whereas children may become poisoned by lead in water, soil, or consumable 
        products;
Whereas most children are poisoned in their homes through exposure to lead 
        particles when lead-based paint deteriorates or is disturbed during home 
        renovation and repainting; and
Whereas lead poisoning crosses all barriers of race, income, and geography: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
    (1) designates the week of October 24, 1999, through October 30, 
1999, and the week of October 22, 2000, through October 28, 2000, as 
``National Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Week''; and
    (2) requests that the President issue a proclamation calling upon 
the people of the United States to observe such weeks with appropriate 
programs and activities.
                                 <all>
```
#### Marguerite WINNER, Appellant, v. Roland N. CATALDO, Appellee.

No. 87-685.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 8, 1988.

Marguerite Winner, in pro. per.

Roland N. Cataldo, Plantation, in pro. per.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Ellison v. Anderson,*74 So. 2d 680 (Fla.1954); *Pickard v. Maritime Holdings Corp.,*161 So.2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL
                          EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Flooring Zone, Inc. on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
Jimmy Lee, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13
                  (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.



Date: August 12, 2005                        /s/ Jimmy Lee
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Jimmy Lee, Principal Executive Officer