alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 194 (Thursday, October 6, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 61999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25819]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 61999]]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket Number EERE-2011-BT-TP-0007]
RIN 1904-AC44

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test 
Procedures for Residential Furnaces and Boilers (Standby Mode and Off 
Mode); Correction

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. 
Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This notice corrects the ADDRESSES section of the notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NOPR) which published in the Federal Register on 
September 13, 2011, regarding the Energy Conservation Program for 
Consumer Products: Test Procedures for Residential Furnaces and 
Boilers. This correction provides the appropriate E-mail address 
whereby interested parties may submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Mohammed Khan, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 586-7892. E-mail: Mohammed.Khan@ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-5827. E-mail: Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov.

Corrections

    In FR Doc. 2011-23286, published in the Federal Register on 
September 13, 2011 (76 FR 56339) make the following correction in the 
ADDRESSES section, on page 56339, in the third column after ``2. E-
mail:'' the e-mail address should read ``FurnaceBoiler-IEC-2011-TP@ee.doe.gov''

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 29, 2011.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Office of Technology 
Development, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2011-25819 Filed 10-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 0 D0 10 0

. HERI BERT O C AMACHO et a l

. v

. US BANK NATI ONAL

ASSOCI ATI ON.

Heri b ert o Cam ach o an d Fran ci s co Garci a Go m ez fi l ed an ap p l i cat i o n fo r

d i s cret i o n ary ap peal

, s eek i ng rev i ew o f t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er g ra n t i n g U

. S. Ban k

Nat i o n al As s o ci at i o n ’ s m ot i o n fo r s u m m ary ju dg m en t i n t hi s d ecl arat o ry j u d g m e n t

act i on . W e, h o wev er, l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n

. Un d er OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 6 (h ), t h e g ran t o f s u m m ary j u d g m e n t o n a n y i s s u e o r

as t o an y p art y i s rev iewab l e b y

d i rect ap p eal

. See Ci t

y o f D emo r es t v. To wn o

f Mt

. Ai r y , 2 8 2 Ga. 6 5 3

, 6 5 4 n .1 (6 53 SE2 d 43 ) (2 0 07 ); W h i d d o n v. St a rg el l

, 1 9 2 Ga. Ap p.

8 2 6

, 8 27 -8 2 8 (3 86 SE2 d 8 8 4 ) (1 9 8 9). O rd i n ari l y, w h en a part y ap pl i es fo r

d i s cret i o n ary rev i ew o f a d i rect l y ap p eal ab l e o rd er, we g ran t t h e ap p l icat i o n u n d er

OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (j). Ho wev er, t o fal l wi t h i n t h is g en eral ru l e t he ap p l icat io n m u st b e

fi led w i t hi n 3 0 d ay s o f en t ry o f t h e o rd er o r ju dg m en t t o b e ap p eal ed

. See OCGA §

5 -6 -3 5 (d ), (j). Here, Cam ach o an d Go m ez fi l ed t h i s ap p l i cat i o n 5 3 9 d ay s aft er en t ry

o f t h e o rd er g ran t i n g s u m m ary ju d g m en t

. Th e ap p l icat i o n is t h erefo re u n ti m el y , an d

i t is h ereb y

DISM ISSED fo r l ack o f ju ri s d i ct i o n. 1

1 Cam ach o an d Go m ez al s o fi l ed a n o t ice o f ap p eal i n t h e t ri al co urt fro m t h e

g ran t o f s u m

m ary j u d gm en t an d t h at ap p eal was d ock et ed i n t hi s Co u r t a s C a s e Nu m b er A 2 0 A0 3 7 5

. On O ct o b er 7, 2 0 1 9

, t h at cas e was d is m i ss ed fo r fai l u re t o fi l e a b ri ef. October 21, 2019C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 10/21/2019
COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE S AM G LASS C OCK III V ICE C HANCELLOR STATE OF DELAWARE C OURT OF C HANCERY C OURTHOUSE 34 T HE C IRCLE G EORGETOWN , D ELAWARE 19947 Date Submitted: November 29, 2023 Date Decided: December 8, 2023 Catherine G. Dearlove, Esquire Kevin M. Gallagher, Esquire Matthew W. Murphy, Esquire Caroline M. McDonough, Esquire RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A. One Rodney Square 920 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Karen E. Keller, Esquire Nathan R. Hoeschen, Esquire Emily S. DiBenedetto, Esquire SHAW KELLER LLP I.M. Pei Building 1105 N orth Market St reet , 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801

Re: NB Alternatives Advisers LLC v. VAT Master Corp., C.A. No. 2022

- 0159

- SG

Dear Counsel:
This matter seeks fees and costs in connection with a prior action 1 in which
Plaintiff s , NB Alternatives Advisers LLC (as successor

- in interest to Almanac Realty Investors, LLC) , Almanac Realty Securities V , LP , TW

- ARS Corp. , Mat thew Kapla n , Moreen R. McGurk ( as Executor of the Estate of John McGurk ) , Justin
Hakimian , and Randall Guenther , sought injunctive relief to enforce a Delaware
f orum selection clause in an operating agreement

. Defendant s , VAT Master Corporation and VAT Master L P , moved to dismiss or stay this action as unripe, in

1 NB Alternatives Advisers LLC v. VAT Master Corp. , 2021 WL 1998475 (Del. Ch. May 19, 2021)

.2

light of proceedings in Wisconsin involving another , arguably overlapping, agreement between the parties with a Wisconsin forum selecti on clause

. I deferred a decision on the motion pending the parties’ assistance in evaluating the issues in
Wisconsin. The Wisconsin appellate court has now entered a decision, clarifying
what is at stake in the Wisconsin action. I have reviewed the Wisconsin a ppell ate
decision provide d by the parties

. 2 I conclude that the ongoing Wisconsin litigation
is not determinative of the fee

- shifting issue before me. Accordingly, I find this matter is ripe for a decision

. Please confer regarding the manner and timing of

su bmitting the matter for decision, and contact my assistant to set a scheduling
conference p romptly

. To the extent the foregoing requires an Order to take effect, IT IS SO
ORDERED

.

Sincerely , /s/ Sam Glasscock III Vice Chancellor

2 VAT Master Corp. v. Almanac Realty Sec. V, LP , 2023 WL 5967937 ( W is. App. Sept. 14, 2023).
**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 Vivid Learning Systems, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Matthew
      J. Hammer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the
              Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/
                Matthew J. HammerName:
                Matthew J. HammerTitle:  
                Chief Executive OfficerDate:  
                May 13, 2008
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA**

**STATE COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY**
**FACULTIES,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**PENNSYLVANIA STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION;**  **COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondents :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 8 MM 2016** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 29th day of March, 2016, as Petitioner has not e stablished that** 

**plenary jurisdiction is warranted, the Application for Extraordinary Relief is**  DENIED,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE **to seek relief in the context of the pending direct a ppeals.**  See

Assoc. of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties **, 78 MAP 2015;** Assoc. of

Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties **, 10 MAP 2016.**

**To the extent that Petitioner seeks relief in the natu re of a stay of the January 13,** 

**2016 order, it is noted that it did not present such a request initially to the** 

**Commonwealth Court.** See **Pa.R.A.P. 1732(a).**
III

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 87

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 22, 2001

Received

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the 2001 District of Columbia Special Olympics

Law Enforcement Torch Run to be run through the

Capitol Grounds.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),
2

HCON 87 RDS

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF RUNNING OF D.C. SPECIAL

2 OLYMPICS LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN

3 THROUGH CAPITOL GROUNDS.

4 On June 1, 2001, or on such other date as the Speak5 er of the House of Representatives and the Committee on

6 Rules and Administration of the Senate may jointly des7 ignate, the 2001 District of Columbia Special Olympics

8 Law Enforcement Torch Run (in this resolution referred

9 to as the ‘‘event’’) may be run through the Capitol

10 Grounds as part of the journey of the Special Olympics

11 torch to the District of Columbia Special Olympics sum12 mer games at Gallaudet University in the District of Co13 lumbia.

14 SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

15 The Capitol Police Board shall take such actions as

16 may be necessary to carry out the event.

17 SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARA18 TIONS.

19 The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions

20 for physical preparations for the event.

21 SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

22 The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforce23 ment of the restrictions contained in section 4 of the Act

24 of July 31, 1946 (40 U.S.C. 193d; 60 Stat. 718), con25 cerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations
3

HCON 87 RDS

1 on the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions appli2 cable to the Capitol Grounds, with respect to the event.

Passed the House of Representatives May 21, 2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
#### Dennis SULLIVAN and Anita K. Sullivan v. Winfred E. BEARDEN; Simon-Williamson Clinic; Baptist Medical Centers, Inc.

85-750.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 19, 1987.

John L. Cole, Birmingham, for appellants.

W. Stancil Starnes and W. Hill Sewell of Starnes & Atchison, Birmingham, for ap-pellees Dr. Winfred E. Bearden and Simon-Williamson Clinic.

William T. Mills II and Salley P. Walker of Porterfield, Scholl, Bainbridge, Mims & Harper, Birmingham, for appellee Baptist Medical Centers, Inc.

PER CURIAM.

On September 26, 1982, Anita Sullivan was admitted to Baptist Medical Center-Princeton. On September 27, 1982, Dr. Winfred Bearden performed a tubal ligation on Sullivan. In approximately late July 1983, Sullivan became pregnant. Nine months later, on April 27, 1984, Sullivan gave birth. On April 26, 1985, Anita Sullivan and her husband filed suit against Dr. Bearden, the hospital, and the clinic with which Dr. Bearden was associated for negligent medical treatment and breach of contract. The trial court held that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations and entered a final summary judgment in favor of all defendants. See Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-482.

We affirm on the authority of *Garrett v. Raytheon Co.,*368 So.2d 516 (Ala.1979); *Street v. City of Anniston,*381 So.2d 26 (Ala.1980); and *Moore v. Glover,*501 So.2d 1187 (Ala.1986).

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, ALMON, SHORES, BEATTY, ADAMS, and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.

JONES, J., dissents.
391 A.2d 683

#### Commonwealth v. Hasson, Appellant. Commonwealth v. Fork, Appellant.

Submitted November 14, 1977.

William M. Panella, Assistant Public Defender, for appellants; No appearance entered nor brief submitted for Commonwealth, appellee.

Judgments of sentence affirmed.

WATKINS, former P. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
#### COLORADO STATE BANK OF WALSH, a Colorado Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sharon UTT, Defendant-Appellee, v. Darrel W. UTT, Defendant-Garnishee-Appellant.

No. 79CA1146.

Colorado Court of Appeals.

Aug. 21, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 11, 1980.

Certiorari Denied Jan. 26, 1981.

*585No appearance for appellees.

Larry Stutter, Lamar, for defendant-garnishee-appellant.

KIRSHBAUM, Judge.

Defendant, Darrel W. Utt, appeals a judgment of the trial court awarding plaintiff, Colorado State Bank of Walsh (the Bank), $1,530 pursuant to a writ of garnishment served upon defendant pursuant to C.R.C.P. 103. We affirm.

The parties have stipulated that, pursuant to a stipulation entered in a 1978 divorce proceeding, defendant was required to pay his former wife the sum of $90 per month as child support; that on the date the writ of garnishment in this case was served on defendant he had made no child support payments to his former wife; and that on that date he was $1,530 in arrears for child support. Prior to commencipg garnishment proceedings, the Bank had obtained a judgment against the former wife in excess of $1,530. The sole issue on appeal is whether the amount defendant admittedly owed for past due child support may be garnished by the Bank.

Defendant, relying upon *Green v. Green,*108 Colo. 10, 113 P.2d 427 (1941), contends that he is not subject to garnishment proceedings because his former wife could not recover the $1,530 arrearage in her own name and for her own use. We disagree.

Past due child support payments in themselves constitute a debt. *Engleman v. Engleman,*145 Colo. 299, 358 P.2d 864 (1961); *Carey v. Carey,*29 Colo.App. 328, 486 P.2d 38 (1971). In *Green v. Green, supra,*trustees of a testamentary trust were held not subject to a writ of garnishment for funds that the trust beneficiary was not entitled to receive until some time in the future. Here the debt was past due, and defendant’s former wife had the right to obtain the arrearages. *See Partridge v. Partridge,*Colo.App., 601 P.2d 662 (1979). While the minor child also has interests respecting the child support payments resulting from the dissolution proceedings, *see In re Marriage of Peper,*38 Colo.App. 177, 554 P.2d 727 (1976), no injury to those interests has been asserted or established.

Defendant does assert that to permit the Bank to garnish him would defeat the purposes of the child support provisions of the Children’s Code. However, § 14-10-115, C.R.S. 1973, is intended to ensure that a custodial parent receives sufficient funds from the noncustodial parent to permit the adequate support of any minor child of divorced parents. Having failed to comply with his obligations of support pursuant to said statute, defendant is in no position to justify his acts on the basis of public policy.

Judgment affirmed.

COYTE and VAN CISE, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 84 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 72
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 84

                          [Report No. 107-197]

    Supporting the goals of Red Ribbon Week in promoting drug-free 
                              communities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 27, 2001

   Mr. Baca submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                           September 5, 2001

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
    Supporting the goals of Red Ribbon Week in promoting drug-free 
                              communities.

Whereas the National Family Partnership, Governors, Attorneys General, Parent 
        Teacher Associations, and over 100 other organizations throughout the 
        United States annually cosponsor October 23 through October 31 as Red 
        Ribbon Week;
Whereas the objective of Red Ribbon Week is to promote drug-free communities 
        through drug prevention efforts, education, parental involvement, and 
        community-wide support;
Whereas drug abuse is one of the major challenges our Nation faces in securing a 
        safe and healthy future for our children; and
Whereas parents, youth, schools, businesses, law enforcement and religious 
        institutions, service organizations, senior citizens, medical and 
        military personnel, sports teams, and individuals throughout the Nation 
        demonstrate their commitment to drug-free, healthy lifestyles by wearing 
        and displaying red ribbons during this weeklong celebration: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress--
            (1) supports the goals of Red Ribbon Week; and
            (2) encourages all Americans to promote drug-free 
        communities and to participate in drug prevention activities to 
        show support for healthy, productive, drug-free lifestyles.

                                                  House Calendar No. 72

107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 84

                          [Report No. 107-197]

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Supporting the goals of Red Ribbon Week in promoting drug-free 
                              communities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 5, 2001

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 67 (Friday, April 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 20781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8252]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Business--Cooperative Service


Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Rural Energy for 
America Program

AGENCY: Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Agency published a document in the Federal Register on 
January 20, 2012, at 77 FR 2948 to announce the acceptance of 
applications under the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) for 
Fiscal Year 2012 for financial assistance as follows: Grants, 
guaranteed loans, and combined grants and guaranteed loans for the 
development and construction of renewable energy systems and for energy 
efficiency improvement projects; grants for conducting energy audits; 
grants for conducting renewable energy development assistance; and 
grants for conducting renewable energy system feasibility studies. The 
document contained two errors on page 2951 in reference to deadline 
dates for National competitions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact the applicable USDA Rural 
Development Energy Coordinator for your respective State as identified 
in the original NOFA at 77 FR 2948.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Need for Corrections

    The deadline dates for National competitions need to reflect the 
correct year. The dates in the original NOFA contained the year 
``2011'' rather than ``2012''. To clarify, all unfunded eligible grant 
only and grant and guaranteed loan combination applications received by 
March 30, 2012, will be competed against other grant only and grant and 
guaranteed loan combination applications from other States at a final 
National competition. In addition, all unfunded eligible guaranteed 
loan only applications received by June 29, 2012, will be competed 
against other guaranteed loan only applications from other States at a 
final National competition if the guaranteed loan reserves have not 
been completely depleted.

Correction of Publication

    In the Federal Register dated January 20, 2012, the following are 
corrected:
    1. On page 2951, column 1, the eighteenth line down under C. State 
and National competitions, ``March 30, 2011'' is corrected to read 
``March 30, 2012''.
    2. On page 2951, column 2, tenth line down, ``June 29, 2011'' is 
corrected to read ``June 29, 2012''.

    Dated: March 21, 2012.
Judith A. Canales,
Administrator, Rural Business--Cooperative Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-8252 Filed 4-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P
ATTENDEEES: Ashley Armstrong, DOE

Laura Barhydt DOE

Eric Stas, DOE

Francine Pinto, DOE

R. Bruce Carnevale, Bradford White Corporation

Mark Taylor, Bradford White Corporation

Adam S. Olsen, Sconset Strategies, LLC on behalf of Bradford White 

Corporation

MEETING DATE: Tuesday, March 24, 2015

SUBJECTS DISCUSSED:

Notice of proposed rulemaking establishing a mathematical conversion factor 

for consumer water heaters and certain commercial water heaters, specifically:

1.) NOPR release date and the burden manufacturers will incur with the condensed 

timeline 

2.) Concerns with the implementation timeline difference between the use of the 

UEF and the FTC labeling change. Manufacturers will not be compliant with 

either DOE or FTC because of this timeline difference

3.) Potential for enforcement relief because of the timeline difference noted above

4.) Potential for negative impact on development of new, energy efficient products 

because the conservation standards are in EF, yet requirement is to use UEF 

after 7/13/15

5.) Potential to reduce the energy conservation standards and violate “antibacksliding” provisions, or make the conservation standard more stringent by 

determining the new conservation standard as a UEF by applying the conversion 

factor to the current EF