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

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1335]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BETTY SUTTON

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 26, 2012

  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, due to unforeseen circumstances, I was not 
able to cast votes last night. Had I been present--
  I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 514.
  I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 515.
  I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 516.
  I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 517.
  I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 518.

                          ____________________
```
August 12, 2015

Robert Serinni

Serriniverse LLC.

316 24th Street

Manhattan Beach, CA 90277

Dear Mr. Serinni:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

part 21; § § 91.103(b)(2) , 91.105, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151, 91.405, 91.407, 91.409, and

91.417 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explai ns why we can not

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your exemption request on behalf of Serriniverse LLC. into the public docket

(No. FAA− 20 15

− 0999 ) on April 14, 2015 , but we ar e unable to process your request any

further. The information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would no t adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

 The specific reasons why you need to exercise the privileges of your exemption outside

the United States.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Avia tion Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 1 1.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

I f you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3
#### Carol M. Gabianelli et al., Appellants, v Christina Gerardi, Respondent.

Casey, J.

Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Supreme Court (Jiudice, J.), entered April 25, 1990 in Dutchess County, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

*469Because defendant satisfied her burden of submitting proof in admissible form that plaintiff Carol M. Gabianelli (hereinafter plaintiff) had not sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see, Rapp v Suriano,*162 AD2d 837), plaintiff bore the burden of establishing a prima facie case of serious injury *(see, Zaffuto v Martorano,*161 AD2d 639). Plaintiffs subjective complaints of persistent low-back pain and its impact on her daily routine are insufficient to meet this burden in the absence of supporting credible medical evidence or documentation *(see, Rivera v Pula,*173 AD2d 1000; *Zaffuto v Martorano, supra; see also, Scheer v Koubek,*70 NY2d 678). Plaintiff points to reports of her treating physician and a radiologist which refer to a mild or minimal disc protrusion or bulging and probable mild disc herniation, but there is no evidence that these injuries are permanent in nature or that they are causally related to the accident out of which this action arose. Summary judgment was, therefore, properly granted to defendant.

Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Return to Main Site

|  |
|--|

HomeSource and Methodology: Poverty Rates

Print this pageEmail this page

| SOURCE & METHODOLOGYPoverty Rates
**Persons for Whom Poverty Status has been Determined:** This includes all persons except institutionalized persons, persons in military group quarters and in college dormitories, and unrelated individuals under 15 years old (foster children). These groups also were excluded from the denominator when calculating poverty rates. 

**Persons Below Poverty Level:** This includes all persons with a status below the poverty threshold of a given family size. 

**Poverty Rate:** The ratio of persons below the poverty level to the total number of persons for whom poverty status has been determined. 

**Poverty Rate, Percent of the U.S. Average:** This value is computed by dividing the poverty rate of a county, state, or region by the national average. 

*Sources:*U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2005–Present; 

U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing 2000 Summary File 3; 

U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing 1990 Summary Tape File 3A; 

U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing 1980 Summary Tape File 3A. 

Compiled by the Appalachian Regional Commission. |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Site MapContact ARCWeb and Privacy PolicyUSA.govOffice of  Inspector General
# C_2022002EN.01002901.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2021 — WM v Commission

(Case T-411/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open Competition EPSO/AD/338/17 - Decision of the Selection Board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition - Articles 21 and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 1d(1), (4) and (5) of the Staff Regulations - Reasonable accommodation - Principle of non-discrimination on the ground of disability - Directive 2000/78/EC - Liability - Material and non-material harm)

(2022/C 2/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WM (represented by: B. Entringer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Selection Board of open competition EPSO/AD/338/17 of 27 September 2017 to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition as well as the decision of the Appointing Authority of 19 April 2018 rejecting his complaint and, secondly, compensation for the damages he allegedly suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Unify Corporation (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended October 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven D. Bonham, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

|   |           (1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the   Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and                              |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|   |           (2)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material   respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the   Registrant. |

| Dated: December 13, 2006 | /s/ STEVEN D. BONHAM    |
|--------------------------|-------------------------|
|                     |                         |
|                     | Steven D. Bonham        |
|                     | Chief Financial Officer |

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Unify Corporation and will be retained by Unify Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 21, 2018 *

Decided November 26, 2018

Before

J OEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge

No. 17-2789

DURWYN TALLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant

,

v

.

MARY MILLER, et al., Defendants-Appellees

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 2:14-cv-2107

Harold A. Baker, J udge

.

O R D E R

Durwyn Talley, an Illinois inmate, appeals the district court’s denial of his fourth and fifth postjudgment motions challengin g the entry of summary judgment on his claims of medical deliberate indiffe rence and retaliation. We affirm.

This litigation has been protracted. After the district judge entered summary judgment, Talley did not appeal. He instead filed a motion to amend judgment under

* We have agreed to decide the case wi thout oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and le gal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2)(C). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited onl y in accordance with Fed. R. A pp . P. 32.1No. 17-2789 Page 2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) that the judge denied. Talley then filed successive motions for relief from judgment under Fede ral Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) that the judge also denied.

Talley followed with his fourth postju dgment motion, also under Rule 60(b), asserting that the judge refused to cons ider newly discovered evidence. The judge denied this motion on grounds that Talley failed to present any new arguments or evidence.

Talley then submitted his fifth postjudg ment motion, also based on Rule 60(b), asking the judge to reconsider his denial of Talley’s prior Rule 60(b) motion and expressing a desire to appeal. The judge de nied this motion, though he agreed to construe the submission as a notice of appeal.

On appeal Talley generally challenges th e district court’s rulings, but in a prior order we limited this appeal to a review of the denial of Talley’s fourth and fifth postjudgment motions. The judge properly exercised his discretion by denying the fourth motion because Talley asked the judge to reconsider evidence that he already had considered, or Talley presented evidence that was available before the judge entered summary judgment. See Hicks v. Midwest Transit, Inc. , 531 F.3d 467, 474 (7th Cir. 2008). And as far as Talley challenges the denial of his fifth motion on the basis that the summary judgment violates clearly establishe d law, he may not use Rule 60(b) to make arguments that could have been raised in a timely appeal. See Mendez v. Republican Bank

, 725 F.3d 651, 660 (7th Cir. 2013).

We have considered Talley’s other arguments, and none has merit.

AFFIRMED
xplosion_ex41.htm

 EXHIBIT 4.1 
 
	COMPANY: XPLOSION INCORPORATED

	Number of Shares
	 
	TRANSFER FROM 
	CERTIFICATE RECEIVED:

	Certificate No.
	REGISTERED HOLDER 
		Date: ________________________ 
	Class:                Common 
	 
	Allotment
	
	Par Value          $0.001
	 
	 
	_____________________________
	Date of Issue
	 
	 
	Signature



 
CATACA RESOURCES, INC.
A NEVADA COMPANY   
    
		1
	Common
	$0.001


 
TRANSFER OF THESE SHARES IS RESTRICTED
 
XPLOSION INCORPORATED    


	 
	THIS CERTIFIES THAT: 
	
	 
	 
	 

	 
	is the registered holder of the number and class of shares described hereon.
	
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	See reverse for restrictions
	IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Certificate to be signed by a duly authorized director or officer.
 
_______________________________
President
	


 
	 
	1

	

	 


 
	For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto:

	 

	 

	(transferee)

	 

	 

	(number and class)

	 

	share(s) represented by the within Certificate.

	 

	DATE ___________________________________________________________

	 

	SIGNATURE ______________________________________________________

	 

	 

	WITNESS ________________________________________________________

	 

	Note: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as written upon the face of the certificate in every particular, without alteration or enlargement, or any change whatsoever.



 
THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED HEREBY HAVE BEEN OFFERED IN AN OFFSHORE TRANSACTION TO A PERSON WHO IS NOT A U.S. PERSON (AS DEFINED HEREIN) PURSUANT TO REGULATION S UNDER THE UNITED STATES SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED (THE "1933 ACT").
 
NONE OF THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED HEREBY HAVE BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE 1933 ACT, OR ANY U.S. STATE SECURITIES LAWS, AND, UNLESS SO REGISTERED, MAY NOT BE OFFERED OR SOLD, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IN THE UNITED STATES (AS DEFINED HEREIN) OR TO U.S. PERSONS EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATION S UNDER THE 1933 ACT, PURSUANT TO AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE 1933 ACT, OR PURSUANT TO AN AVAILABLE EXEMPTION FROM, OR IN A TRANSACTION NOT SUBJECT TO, THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE 1933 ACT AND IN EACH CASE ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE STATE SECURITIES LAWS. IN ADDITION, HEDGING TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING THE SECURITIES MAY NOT BE CONDUCTED UNLESS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE 1933 ACT. "UNITED STATES" AND "U.S. PERSON" ARE AS DEFINED BY REGULATION S UNDER THE 1933 ACT.
 
 
	2
EXHIBIT 21.1

                                     SUBSIDIARIES OF
                                 GIANT INDUSTRIES, INC.
                                (a Delaware corporation)


                                     Jurisdiction of   Names Under Which
  Subsidiary                         Incorporation     Company Does Business
  ----------                         ---------------   ---------------------
  Giant Industries
    Arizona, Inc.                    Arizona           Giant Refining Company
                                                       Ciniza Pipe Line Company
                                                       Giant Transportation
                                                       Giant Service Stations
                                                       Giant Travel Center
                                                       TransWest Tank Lines
    - Giant Four Corners,
        Inc.*                        Arizona
        - Navajo Convenient Stores
            Co., LLC**               New Mexico
    - Giant Mid-Continent,
        Inc.*                        Arizona
    - Phoenix Fuel Co., Inc.*        Arizona           Phoenix Fuel Company
                                                       Mesa Fuel Company
                                                       Tucson Fuel Company
                                                       Firebird Fuel Company
                                                       PFC Lubricants Company
    - DeGuelle Oil Company*          Colorado
    - Ciniza Production
        Company*                     New Mexico
    - Giant Stop-N-Go of
        New Mexico, Inc.*            New Mexico
    - San Juan Refining
        Company*                     New Mexico
    - Giant Pipeline Company*        New Mexico
  _______________

   *A wholly-owned subsidiary of Giant Industries Arizona, Inc.
  **Giant Four Corners, Inc. has a 66 2/3% interest in this entity.
# C_2011362EN.01002402.xml

| 10.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 362/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 362/24

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Full Court) of 27 September 2011 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case F-55/08 DEP)

(Staff cases - Procedure - Taxation of costs - Recoverable costs - Essential costs - Fees paid by an institution to its lawyer - Obligation for an unsuccessful applicant to pay those fees - Principle of equal treatment - Effective judicial protection - Conditions)

2011/C 362/41

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: F. Martin, Agent, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for taxation of costs lodged by the defendant following the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 November 2009 in Case F-55/08.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The amount of the costs recoverable by the European Investment Bank in Case F-55/08 De Nicola v EIB is fixed at EUR 6 000.

---
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as                           ( print page 88930)                        amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.                

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Review of Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (COBRE) Phase III—Transitional Centers (P30) Applications.                    

*Date:*                         March 12-13, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Manas Chattopadhyay, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3AN12N, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, 301-827-5320,                         *manasc@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 20, 2023.

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-28392 Filed 12-22-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P