alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### EPA Cross-walk Analysis: State of South Dakota Jul y 29, 2013 Submittal

1 Citation from 07/29/2013 submittal

Number of the Rule and Rule Title Discussion Action we are taking in this notice

74:36:01:01 (Definitions) 74:36:01:01(27) “Existing source” Removal of the reference to variance. Proposing app roval

74:36:01:01(38) “New Source” Removal of the referen ce to an “approved state issued variance.” Proposing approval

74:36:01:01 (66) “Variance” This definition is bein g deleted. Proposing approval 74:36:02 (Ambient Air Quality) Updating federal references throughout. Proposing a pproval

74:36:04 (Operating Permits for Minor Sources) Updating references to South Dakota’s legal code. P roposing approval

74:36:05 (Operating Permits for Part 70 Sources) We are not taking action on this chapter. Title V permits are not part of the SIP. No action needed

74:36:07 (New Source Performance Standards) We are not taking action on this chapter. NSPS are not part of the SIP. No action needed

74:36:08 (NESHAPS) We are not taking action on this chapter. NESHAPS are not part of the SIP. No action needed

74:36:09 (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) The proposed changes were acted on January 29, 2015
, 80 FR 4799. No action needed

74:36:10 (New Source Review) Removing 74:36:10:09 and 10, both related to clean units. We are not taking action on 74:36:10:06. Proposing approval, with the exception of 74:36:10:06 74:36:11 (Performance Testing) Updating the federal reference throughout chapter 1 1. Proposing approval

74:36:12 (Control of Visible Emissions) Updating the federal reference with the exception o f 74:36:12:02(3), on which we are not taking action. Proposing approval, with the exception of 74:36:12:02(3) 74:36:13 (Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems) Updating the federal reference throughout chapter 1 3. Proposing approval

74:36:16 (Acid Rain Program) We are not taking action on this section. The Acid Rain Program is not required to be included in a SIP per section 110 of the CAA. No action needed

74:36:18 (Regulations for State Facilities In The Rapid City Area) Updates 74:36:18:10 (Visible emission limit for construction and continuous operation activities) t o update test method to EPA’s Method 9 in 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix A (July 1, 2012). Proposing approval

74:36:20 (Construction Permits For New Sources Or Modifications) Updating the federal reference with regard to 74:36:20:05. Proposing approval

74:36:21 (Regional Haze Program) Updating the federal references throughout. Proposi ng approval
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INCORMATION EXTRACTED FROM TUT SYSTEMS,
INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          47,263                   3,188
<SECURITIES>                                     3,110                   6,916
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,259                   1,820
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (165)                    (13)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,479                   1,805
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,844                  14,048
<PP&E>                                           3,163                   2,482
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1,362)                   (926)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  63,145                  15,613
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,597                   3,442
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                  42,170
<PREFERRED>                                          0                   1,567
<COMMON>                                            11                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,554                 (31,566)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    63,145                  15,613
<SALES>                                          3,573                   1,696
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,891                   1,860
<CGS>                                            2,242                   1,012
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,242                   1,012
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,173                   3,982
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 176                      10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,311)                 (3,020)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,312)                 (3,020)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,312)                 (3,020)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.45)                 (16.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.45)                 (16.53)
        

</TABLE>
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed February 22, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-0940

Lower Tribunal No. 19-3198 SP

________________

United Automobile Insurance Company,

Appellant,

vs.

Family Rehab, Inc.

a/a/o Hugo Nelson Jimenez,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Lawrence 

D. King, Judge.

Michael J. Neimand, for appellant.

David B. Pakula, P.A., and David B. Pakula (Pembroke Pines); 

Corredor & Husseini, P.A., and Maria E. Corredor, for appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES, and LINDSEY, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Appellant United Automobile Insurance Company appeals from a final 

judgment awarding $4,782.00 in attorney’s fees to Appellee Family Rehab, 

Inc., as assignee of the Insured. Though United Auto paid PIP benefits in 

response to Family Rehab’s demand letter, it did not initially pay the statutory 

late payment penalty and postage, totaling $10.55.

1

 The issue before us is 

whether Family Rehab is entitled to attorney’s fees after recovering solely on 

the late penalty and postage.

In South Florida Pain & Rehabilitation of West Dade v. Infinity Auto 

Insurance Co., 318 So. 3d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), the Fourth District held 

that an insured’s assignee is not entitled to attorney’s fees when the insurer 

timely pays all PIP benefits pursuant to a demand but does not initially pay 

the late penalty and postage. The parties do not dispute that this case is on 

all fours.

Family Rehab argues that South Florida Pain and Rehabilitation was 

wrongly decided and that this Court should certify conflict. We disagree and 

decline to certify conflict. Based on the sound reasoning in South Florida 

Pain and Rehabilitation, we conclude that Family Rehab is not entitled to 

attorney’s fees. Accordingly, we reverse.

1 On March 5, 2019, Family Rehab filed the underlying Complaint seeking 

payment of the late penalty and postage. United Auto paid the late payment 

and postage on June 29, 2019.
3

Reversed and remanded.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1141 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1141

  To make technical corrections to the Guam World War II Claims Fund.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2019

 Mr. San Nicolas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To make technical corrections to the Guam World War II Claims Fund.

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

SECTION 1. APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR GUAM WORLD WAR II CLAIMS FUND.

    For purposes of carrying out sections 1704 and 1705 of title XVII 
of division A of Public Law 114-328, including administrative costs 
incurred by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission and the Department 
of the Treasury for deposit into the Treasury as miscellaneous 
receipts, there are hereby appropriated amounts in the Guam World War 
II Claims Fund established in section 1703 (including amounts deposited 
in prior years) which shall remain available until expended: Provided, 
That not more than 5 percent of such funds may be used for 
administrative costs.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT (10)(a)

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

<PAGE>

                        Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Independent Auditors"
in the Statement of Additional Information and to the use of our reports
(1) dated February 15, 2002 with respect to the statutory-basis financial
statements and schedules of Transamerica Life Insurance Company and (2) dated
February 1, 2002 with respect to the subaccounts of Separate Account VA F,
which are available for investment by contract owners of Premier Asset Builder
Variable Annuity, included in Post-Effective Amendment No. 4 to the Registration
Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-62738) and related Prospectus of the Premier Asset
Builder Variable Annuity.


                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Des Moines, Iowa
April 25, 2002
DAVID A. TURNER, Former 

Husband,

Appellant,

v.

DEBORAH R. TURNER, Former 

Wife,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-2031

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 14, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

David Rimmer, Judge.

James L. Chase of James L. Chase & Associates, PLC, Pensacola, for Appellant.

E. Jane Brehany, Pensacola, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, C.J., BENTON and THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
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 Report of Left Behind Games Inc. a Washington corporation
        (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed
        with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) I, Troy A. Lyndon,
        Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) hereby certify, pursuant
        to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
        that,
        to my knowledge:
  a.
          the
          Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
          the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
 
 b.
          the
          information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
          the financial condition and results of operations of the
          Company.
 
 /s/
        Troy A. Lyndon
 Troy
        A.
        Lyndon, President and Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal
        Executive Officer)
 
 Dated
        November 19, 2007
CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Douglas Lake Minerals Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending November 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Gurpreet Singh Sangha, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his knowledge:

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

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



|Date:  January 17, 2006 | /s/
Gurpreet Singh Sangha
Gurpreet Singh Sangha
Chief Financial Officer
|----------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Douglas Lake Minerals Inc. and will be retained by Douglas Lake Minerals Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                               CONSENT OF KPMG LLP

The Board of Directors
Sames Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
Nos. 333-92993 and 333-30191 on Form S-8 of Sames Corporation of our report
dated February 16, 2000 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Sames
Corporation and consolidated subsidiaries as of November 30, 1999 and 1998, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended November 30,
1999, which report appears in the November 30, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K
of Sames Corporation.


                                                KPMG LLP


Chicago, Illinois
February 25, 2000
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *989Gregory Carter, Appellant.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that his motion to suppress the identification testimony of Francine Bunton, a witness, was improperly denied. We disagree. The suppression court properly found that the procedure employed here was merely confirmatory in view of the fact that the witness had seen defendant on several prior occasions and knew him by another name *(see, People v Green,*155 AD2d 880, *lv denied*75 NY2d 813; *People v Suren,*131 AD2d 896, 897, *lv denied*70 NY2d 804; *People v Johnson,*124 AD2d 748, 749, *lv denied*69 NY2d 713). Thus, defendant’s argument of suggestiveness is not relevant here *(see, People v Fleming,*109 AD2d 848, 849).

Defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the cumulative effect of the admission of certain preliminary hearing testimony of Francine Bunton *(see,*CPL 670.10, 670.20; *People v Arroyo,*54 NY2d 567, *cert denied*456 US 979; *People v Nettles,*118 AD2d 875, 876, *lv denied*68 NY2d 671), by prosecutorial misconduct during summation *(see, People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396), and by the trial court’s response to the jury’s inquiry regarding Francine Bunion’s absence at the trial is lacking in merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Maloy, J.—Assault, 1st Degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.
Formal Recommendation 

From: The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

To: The National Organic Program (NOP)

Date: April 28, 2022

Subject: NOSB Resolution - Organic Livestock and Poultry Standards (OLPS) 

NOSB Chair: Nate Powell-Palm

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following:

Other: X

Statement of the Recommendation: 

The National Organic Standards Board affirms the position that USDA needs to finalize the Organic 

Livestock and Poultry Standards (OLPS) rule to clarify the expectations for animal care in organic 

livestock production. Previously characterized as the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices rulemaking, 

the Board has consistently supported action to establish clear requirements for space, density, outdoor 

access, and general animal care provisions for avian and mammalian species. USDA issued the OLPS 

proposed rule on August 9, 2022 seeking public comment and is correct in asserting both the statutory 

authority and the conditions of market failure that necessitate action. This federal rulemaking is 

essential to alleviate instances of competitive harm among market participants and to ensure alignment 

with consumer expectations of organic production. 

Therefore, be it resolved that the National Organic Standards Board—as USDA’s Federal Advisory Board 

on organic issues and representing organic farmers, ranchers, processors, retailers, and consumers –

urges the Secretary to finalize the Organic Livestock and Poultry Standard rule expeditiously, to 

strengthen organic animal health and welfare standards, protect communities and the environment, 

improve consistency, better meet consumer expectations, and address market failures.

NOSB Vote: 

Motion to accept the resolution on the Organic Livestock and Poultry Standards (OLPS) 

Motion by: Mindee Jeffery 

Seconded by: Liz Graznak

Yes: 15 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recuse: 0

 

Motion Passed
CHIEF JUSTICE

 ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

 NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

 DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

 GINA M. BENAVIDES

 GREGORY T. PERKES

 NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

 DORIAN E. RAMIREZ

NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361-888-0416 (TEL)

361-888-0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539

956-318-2405 (TEL)

956-318-2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa

Court of Appeals 

Thirteenth District of Texas 

April 8, 2015

Hon. John T. Hubert

District Attorney

700 E. Kleberg, 2nd Floor

P. O. Box 1471

Kingsville, TX 78363

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Jack Pulcher

105th District Court (Kleberg Co.)

P.O. Box 312

Kingsville, TX 78364

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Vincent Gonzalez

Asst. District Attorney

P. O. Box 1471

Kingsville, TX 78364

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Jaime E. Carrillo

Attorney at Law

721 East King Avenue

Kingsville, TX 78363

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Jennifer Whittington

Kleberg County District Clerk

P. O. Box 312

Kingsville, TX 78364-0312

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13-14-00237-CR

Tr.Ct.No. 12-CRF-0137

Style: The State of Texas v. Isaac Sastaita

Enclosed please find copy of an order issued by this Court on this date.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER:ch

Enc.
**Exhibit 32**

**Section 906Certification**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 As AdoptedPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection withthe Annual Report of Bresler & Reiner, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned officersof the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        |       | /s/ SIDNEY M. BRESLER                                    |
|--------|------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|   | ** ** | **Sidney M. Bresler**                                    |
|   | ** ** | **Chief Executive Officer**                              |
|   | ** ** | /s/  DARRYL M. EDELSTEIN                                 |
|   | ** ** | **Darryl M. Edelstein**                                  |
|   | ** ** | **Executive Vice President—Finance & CFO** |

 

Dated: April 2, 2007

----
**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 Annual Report of Bowne & Co.,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the periodending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Philip E. Kucera, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe 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.     /s/ Philip E. Kucera           Philip E. Kucera *Chief Executive Officer*March 16, 2005
EXHIBIT 21


BORDEN CHEMICAL, INC.

SUBSIDIARIES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2003


Subsidiaries:
The percentage of voting securities owned, or other basis of control
State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organizationBCMP Colombia S.A.
100
ColombiaAlisa, S.A.
100
ColombiaBDS Two, Inc.
100
DelawareBFE, Inc.
100
DelawareBorden Chemical Canada, Inc.
100
CanadaBorden Chemical Foundry, Inc.
100
DelawareHA-International, LLC
75
PennsylvaniaBorden Chemical Investments, Inc.
100
DelawareBorden Chemical International, Inc.
100
DelawareBorden Chemical Australia (Pty.) Ltd.
100
AustraliaFentak Pty Limited
100
AustraliaFentak Sdn. Bhd.
100
MalaysiaBorden Chemical Holdings (Panama), S.A.
100
PanamaAlba Adesivos Industria E Comercio Ltda.
100
BrazilBorden Quimica Industria e Comercio Ltda.
99
BrazilBorden Chemical (M.) Sdn. Bhd.
100
MalaysiaBorden Chimie, S.A.
98
FranceBorden International Holdings, Ltd.
100
UKBorden Chemical GB, Ltd.
100
UKBorden Chemical U.K. Limited
100
UKBorden Chemical Finance, Ltd.
100
UKCompania Quimica Borden, S.A.
100
Panama
NOTE: The above subsidiaries have been included in Registrant's Consolidated Financial Statements on a consolidated or equity basis as appropriate. The names of certain subsidiaries, active and inactive, included in the Consolidated Financial Statements and of certain other subsidiaries not included therein, are omitted since when considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary they do not constitute a significant subsidiary.