alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(July 22, 1991)

#### Frederick Aldorasi, Appellant, v Antonia Aldorasi, Respondent.

— In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a resettled judgment dated November 21, 1985, the plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), dated October 10, 1989, as, after a hearing, denied his motion for downward modification of child support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The husband failed to demonstrate any substantial change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a downward modification of his child support obligation *(see, Alfano v Alfano,*151 AD2d 530, 531; *Stirber v Stirber,*139 AD2d 727).

We have reviewed the husband’s remaining contentions and find that they do not require reversal. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
# C_2008142EN.01001802.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/18

---

Action brought on 7 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-143/08)

(2008/C 142/29)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Kaduczak and P. Dejmek, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the purpose of giving effect to Commission Directive 2006/73/EC (1) of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, or in any event by failing to inform the Commission of the adoption of such measures, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the purpose of giving effect to Commission Directive 2006/73/EC (1) of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, or in any event by failing to inform the Commission of the adoption of such measures, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising under that directive;

1

| — | order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing Directive 2006/73/EC expired on 31 January 2007.

---

(1)  OJ L 241 of 2.9.2006, p. 26-58.

1

---
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 2 3

- 2769

_____________________________
B RANDY L ESHEE W ATERS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County

. Clifton A

. Drake , Judge

. May 6, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , M.K. T HOMAS , and N ORDBY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee

.
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 on Form 10-K of Northern Border Partners,
L.P. (the "Partnership") for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Jerry L.
Peters, as Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the Partnership, hereby
certifies, 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
          section 15(d), as applicable, 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 Partnership.


Dated:  March 11, 2005              /s/ Jerry L. Peters
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Jerry L. Peters
                                    Chief Financial and Accounting Officer


This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and
not for any other purpose.
IIB 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4463 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 21, 2018 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 6 Doyers Street in New York, New York, 

as the ‘‘Mabel Lee Memorial Post Office’’. 

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


amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4463 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. MABEL LEE MEMORIAL POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 6 Doyers Street in New York, 

4 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Mabel 

5 Lee Memorial Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Mabel Lee Memorial 

10 Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 20, 

2018. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with BILLS
# C_2008209EN.01002101.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/21

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Umweltsenat (Austria) lodged on 19 May 2008 — Umweltanwalt von Kärnten, other parties Kärnter Landesregierung, Alpe Adria Energia SpA

(Case C-205/08)

(2008/C 209/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Umweltsenat

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Umweltanwalt von Kärnten

Applicant:

Other parties: Kärnter Landesregierung, Alpe Adria Energia SpA

Other parties:

Question referred

Is Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1), as amended by the Amending Directive, Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2) and the Public Participation Directive, Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (3), to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State must provide for an obligation to carry out an assessment in the case of types of projects listed in Annex I to the directive, in particular in point 20 (construction of overhead electrical power lines with a voltage of 220 kV or more and a length of more than 15 km), where the proposed scheme is to extend over the territory of two or more Member States, even if the threshold giving rise to the obligation to carry out an assessment (here, a length of 15 kilometres) is not reached or exceeded by the part of the scheme situated on its national territory but is reached or exceeded by adding the parts of the scheme proposed to be situated in a neighbouring State or States?

1

2

3

---

(1)  OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.

1

(2)  OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5.

2

(3)  OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17.

3

---
#### Fiordalisa Polanco, Respondent, v Richard Higgins, as Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, et al., Appellants.

— Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, J.), entered May 9, 1990, which, *inter alia,*annulled and vacated the determination of the respondent State Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated December 30, 1989, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court found a decision by the respondent Commissioner that the tenant could not recover the full amount of a rent overcharge from the present landlord but that said overcharge should be apportioned between the present and prior landlords was without a reasonable basis.

Our review of this matter is restricted to an inquiry into the rationality of the determination made by the respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal *(Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222, 230 [1974]). Without passing on the policy of apportioning between former and current owners of a rent stabilized accommodation the liability for excess rent charged to a tenant which results from a Fair Market Rent *730Appeal, we find that the respondent Division’s determination, in the particular circumstances of this proceeding, was not rationally based.

Times Equities Inc., the current owner, was aware of the tenant’s Fair Market Rent Appeal when it purchased the building in which the subject apartment is located, as it filed an answer in the proceeding the day after it acquired the premises. Since both the former and current owners were aware of the potential liability that would result from the proceeding, arrangements could have been made between them so that each would bear its share of the burden. These facts preclude apportionment of the award by the respondent Division, notwithstanding its argument that such apportionment is in accordance with the prior longstanding policy originating with the Conciliation and Appeals Board. It would be unfair, in light of these facts, to require the tenant to incur the expense of obtaining the proceeds of a favorable determination from the prior owner. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jairo Arango, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.), rendered February 14, 1990, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was arrested during a so-called buy and bust narcotics operation and moved to suppress evidence that prerecorded buy money was found in his possession. The arresting officer testified at the suppression hearing that he observed the undercover officer and the defendant meet in a park. After receiving a radio transmission from a third member of the narcotics team that the undercover officer had given the prearranged "buy sign”, he seized and searched the defendant.

The defendant contends that the People failed to establish probable cause for the search since only the arresting officer testified at the hearing. This contention is without merit. The arresting officer relied on a radio transmission from another member of the narcotics team. Since the reliability of this information was established, the People were not required to produce the sender of the transmission or the undercover officer as witnesses *(see, People v Petralia,*62 NY2d 47, *cert denied*469 US 852; *People v Amoateng,*141 AD2d 398; *People v James,*135 AD2d 832). The content of the transmission, together with the arresting officer’s personal observations, were sufficient to support a finding of probable cause *(see, People v Grier,*118 AD2d 727). Thompson, J. R, Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
# C_2010024EN.01007602.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/76

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 November 2009 — Di Prospero v Commission

(Case F-99/08) (1)

1

(Staff case - Open Competition - Anti-fraud sector - Competition notice EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 - Lack of possibility for candidates to apply for several open competitions simultaneously - Refusal to admit the applicant to open competition EPSO/AD/117/08)

2010/C 24/141

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rita Di Prospero (Uccle, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of EPSO’s decision to not admit the applicant to open competition EPSO/AD/117/08.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) to not allow Mrs Di Prospero to apply for open competition EPSO/AD/117/08; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) to not allow Mrs Di Prospero to apply for open competition EPSO/AD/117/08;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear all of the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear all of the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009, p. 54.

1

---
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4459 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to limit the amount of certain 

qualified conservation contributions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 28, 2017 

Mr. THOMPSON of California (for himself and Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to limit the 

amount of certain qualified conservation contributions. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Charitable Conserva5 tion Easement Program Integrity Act of 2017’’. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4459 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON PARTNER’S DEDUCTION FOR 

2 QUALIFIED CONSERVATION CONTRIBUTIONS 

3 MADE BY PARTNERSHIP. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 170(h) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

6 the following new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(7) LIMITATION ON PARTNERSHIP ALLOCA8 TION OF CONTRIBUTIONS.— 

9 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any 

10 qualified conservation contributions of any part11 nership (whether directly or as a distributive 

12 share of such contributions of another partner13 ship), no amount of such contributions may be 

14 taken into account under this section by any 

15 partner of such partnership as a distributive 

16 share of such contributions if the aggregate 

17 amount so taken into account by such partner 

18 for the taxable year would (but for this para19 graph) exceed 2.5 times such partner’s adjusted 

20 basis in such partnership (determined as of the 

21 close of such taxable year and without regard to 

22 such contributions). The preceding sentence 

23 shall only apply with respect to the first 5 tax24 able years of such partner which end after the 

25 date on which such partner first became a part26 ner in the partnership. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4459 IH

1 ‘‘(B) EXCEPTION FOR FAMILY PARTNER2 SHIPS.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with 

3 respect to any partnership if substantially all of 

4 the partnership interests in such partnership 

5 are held by individuals who are related within 

6 the meaning of section 152(d)(2). 

7 ‘‘(C) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall 

8 prescribe such regulation or other guidance as 

9 may be necessary to carry out, and prevent the 

10 avoidance of, the purposes of this paragraph.’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply to 

12 contributions made after December 23, 2016. No infer13 ence is intended as the appropriate treatment of contribu14 tions made on or before such date or as to any activity 

15 not described in section 170(b)(7) of the Internal Revenue 

16 Code of 1986, as added by this section. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
                    CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

   Pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350)

      The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of TransCommunity Bankshares Incorporated,
respectively, certify that, to the best of each such individual's knowledge and
belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004,
which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of TransCommunity Bankshares
Incorporated at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing
certification is made pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C. ss. 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose. The
undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing
certification except as required by law.



                                            /s/  WILLIAM C. WILEY
                                            ----------------------------
                                                 William C. Wiley
                                                 Chief Executive Officer

                                            /s/  BRUCE B. NOLTE
                                            ----------------------------
                                                 Bruce B. Nolte
                                                 Chief Operating Officer

                                            /s/  THOMAS M. CROWDER
                                            ----------------------------
                                                 Thomas M. Crowder
                                                 Chief Financial Officer

      Dated: May 12, 2004


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 TransCommunity Bankshares
Incorporated and will be retained by TransCommunity Bankshares Incorporated and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2009180EN.01004702.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/47

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Bastos Viegas v OHIM — Fabre Médicament (OPDREX)

(Case T-33/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark OPDREX - Earlier national word mark OPTREX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2009/C 180/87

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bastos Viegas, SA (Penafiel, Portugal) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal and P. López Ronda, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Pierre Fabre médicament (Boulogne Billancourt, France) (represented by: J. Grau Mora, A. Angulo Lafora and M. Ferrándiz Avendaño, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 November 2007 (Case R 1238/2006-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Pierre Fabre Médicament SA and Bastos Viegas, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bastos Viegas, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bastos Viegas, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.

1

---
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Craig F. Fortin, the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of NB&T Financial Group, Inc., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-Q of NB&T Financial Group, Inc.;



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



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;



4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.



|                     |  |                                                  
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 11, 2005 |  | /s/ Craig F. Fortin                              
|                     |  | Craig F. Fortin                                  
|                     |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



36