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

###### Office of the United States Trade Representative

# AGENCY:

Office of the United States Trade Representative. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Industry Sector Advisory Committee on Services (ISAC-13) will hold a meeting on November 1, 2000, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon. The meeting will be opened to the public from 9:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. and closed to the public from 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon. 

# DATES:

The meeting is scheduled for November 1, 2000, unless otherwise notified. 

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Department of Commerce, Room 6800, located at 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                         Karen Holderman, (202) 482-0345, Department of Commerce, 14th St. and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,                               ( print page 64738)                            DC 20230, or Dominic Bianchi, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 1724 F St. NW., Washington, DC 20508, (202) 395-6120.                     

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

During the opened portion of the meeting the ISAC members will comment and make recommendations on the reform of the trade advisory system. 

Dominic Bianchi, 

Acting Assistant United States Trade Representative for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Liaison. 

[FR Doc. 00-27862  Filed 10-26-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190-01-M
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

I, Thaddeus Dupper, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report of Evolving Systems, Inc.on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2008 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Form 10-Kfairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Evolving Systems, Inc.

 
| /s/  Thaddeus Dupper     |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
|                     |   |
| Thaddeus  Dupper         |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer |   |
| March 11,  2009     |   |

 

 

This certification is furnished with this Annual Report on Form 10-Kpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Suchcertification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act,except to the extent that we specifically incorporate it by reference.

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7992
DANTE LINTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE; DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, Defendants - Appellees. No. 07-6106
DANTE LINTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE; DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:05-cv-02859-RDB) Submitted: July 31, 2007 Decided: August 15, 2007- 2 - Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dante Linton, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 3 - PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Dante Linton appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees in this civil action, in which Linton sought the return of certain property and to set aside an administrative forfeiture. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its orders and at the hearing held on January 11, 2007. Linton v. U.S. Marshals Serv. , No. 1:05-cv-02859-RDB (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2006; filed Jan. 16, 2007 & entered Jan. 18, 2007). We grant Linton’s motion to file a supplemental informal brief and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 32(i)**

****

****

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

                        In connect with the quarterly report of Taylor Devices, Inc. (the "'Company"') on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 30, 2009 tobe filed with Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "'Report"'), I, Douglas P. Taylor, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,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 as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.

                        It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
| Date: January 14, 2010         | By: | /s/ Douglas P. Taylor      |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                        |     | Douglas P. Taylor,Chief Executive Officer           |
EXHIBIT 21. SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
 STATE OFSUBSIDIARY
    
    INCORPORATIONAOC Transport, Inc.
    
    DelawareGettyMart, Inc.
    
    DelawareGetty HI Indemnity, Inc.
    
    New YorkGetty Leasing, Inc.
    
    DelawareGetty Properties Corp.
    
    DelawareGetty TM Corp.
    
    MarylandGTY MA/NH Leasing, Inc.
    
    DelawareGTY MD Leasing, Inc.
    
    DelawareGTY NY Leasing, Inc.
    
    DelawareLeemilts Flatbush Avenue, Inc.
    
    New YorkLeemilts Petroleum, Inc.
    
    New YorkPower Test Realty Company Limited Partnership*
    
    New YorkSlattery Group, Inc.
    
    New Jersey
 
 *
    
    ninety-nine percent owned by the Company, representing the limited partner units, and one
percent owned by Getty Properties Corp., representing the general partner interest.
Commercial and Industrial Pumps Working Group

DOE Forrestal

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585

December 18‐19, 2013 Meeting Agenda

Wednesday, December 18, 2013; 10:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. (EST)

Time Presentation/Discussion

10:00 – 10:15 Welcome

DOE Building Amenities, Security, etc.

10:15 – 10:30 Ethics Discussion (DOE General Counsel)

10:30 – 11:15 Introductions by the Working Group Members

11:15 – 11:30 Introduction of Facilitator

Description of Negotiated Rulemakings

11:30 – 11:45 BREAK

11:45 – 12:30 Establishment of Ground Rules for Negotiations

12:30 – 1:30 LUNCH

1:30 – 2:30 Continued Establishment of Ground Rules for Negotiations

2:30 – 4:30 Discussion of Rulemaking Objective and Scope of Negotiations

4:30 – 4:45 BREAK

4:45 – 5:30 Continued Discussion of Rulemaking Objective and Scope of Negotiations

5:30 – 6:00 Development of Schedule for Negotiation Meetings

Thursday, December 19, 2013; 8:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. (EST)

Time Presentation/Discussion

8:00 – 10:30 Continued Discussion of Carry Over from Day 1 (December 18)

10:30 – 10:45 BREAK

10:45 – 12:00 Discussion of the Issues Surrounding Commercial and Industrial Pumps

12:00 – 1:00 Lunch

1:00 – 2:30 Continued Discussion/Negotiated Rulemaking Efforts

2:30 – 3:00 Confirm Meeting Schedule

Establish Needs for Next Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 210 (Monday, October 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64688-64689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27759]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Title, Form, and OMB Number: Personal Check Cashing Agreement; DD 
Form 2761; OMB Number 0730-0005.
    Type of Request: Revision.
    Number of Respondents: 386,000.
    Responses Per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 386,000.
    Average Burden Per Response: 30 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 193,000.
    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary 
to

[[Page 64689]]

meet the Department of Defense's (DoD) requirement for cashing personal 
checks overseas and afloat by DoD disbursing activities, as provided in 
31 U.S.C. 3342. The DoD Financial Management Regulation, Volume 5, 
provides guidance to DoD Disbursing Officers in the performance of this 
information collection. This allows the DoD disbursing officer or 
authorized agent the authority to offset the pay without prior 
notification, in cases where this form has been signed subject to 
conditions specified within the approved procedures. The front of the 
form will be completed and signed by the authorized individual 
requesting check cashing privileges. By signing the form, the 
individual is freely and voluntarily consenting to the immediate 
collection from their current pay, without prior notice. In the event 
the check is dishonored, the disbursing officer will complete and 
certify the reverse side of the form and forward the form to the 
applicable payroll office for collection from the individual's current 
pay.
    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Edward C. Springer.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Springer at the Office of Management 
and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert Cushing.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.

    Dated: October 24, 2000.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-27759 Filed 10-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 6200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2788]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-171-000]


Columbia Gulf Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Change in 
Gas Tariff

February 2, 2000.
    Take notice that on January 28, 2000, Columbia Gulf Transmission 
Company (Columbia Gulf) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC 
Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on 
Appendix A to the filing, with a proposed effective date of March 1, 
2000.
    Columbia Gulf is making the instant filing to reflect various 
administrative revisions to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 
No. 1 to reflect items including, but not limited to, changes to date 
references on various forms of service agreements and revisions to 
company contact information.
    Columbia Gulf states further that copies of this filing have been 
mailed to all of its firm and interruptible customers and affected 
state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-2788 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3343 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3343

 To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to clarify the rules 
regarding the determination of the compensation of the Chief Financial 
                  Officer of the District of Columbia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 28, 2013

 Ms. Norton (for herself and Mr. Issa) introduced the following bill; 
 which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to clarify the rules 
regarding the determination of the compensation of the Chief Financial 
                  Officer of the District of Columbia.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION OF CHIEF 
              FINANCIAL OFFICER OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

    (a) Determination of Compensation.--Section 424(b)(2)(E) of the 
District of Columbia Home Rule Act (sec. 1-204.24(b)(2)(E), D.C. 
Official Code) is amended to read as follows:
                    ``(E) Pay.--The Chief Financial Officer shall be 
                paid at a rate such that the total amount of 
                compensation paid during any calendar year does not 
                exceed an amount equal to the limit on total pay which 
                is applicable during the year under section 5307 of 
                title 5, United States Code, to an employee described 
                in section 5307(d) of such title.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to pay periods beginning on or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3257 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3257

 Making continuing appropriations for all departments and agencies of 
            the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 5, 2013

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 Making continuing appropriations for all departments and agencies of 
            the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fiscal Sanity Act for 
Appropriations''.

SEC. 2. CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS.

    There is hereby appropriated for 330 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act--
            (1) for each project or activity for which budget authority 
        was provided in the Consolidated and Further Continuing 
        Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-6), an amount equal to 
        the budget authority provided in such Act, as reduced pursuant 
        to the Presidential sequestration order dated March 1, 2013, to 
        remain available for a comparable period of availability; and
            (2) for entitlements and other mandatory payments whose 
        budget authority was provided in appropriations Acts for fiscal 
        year 2013, and for activities under the Food and Nutrition Act 
        of 2008, such amounts as may be necessary to maintain program 
        levels as they existed on September 30, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7554

CHARLES M. ANDERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION; JACK

LEE; JIM COFFEY, Business Manager, Keen

Mountain Correctional Center; RON ANGELONE;

RICHARD WILSON, Commissary Manager, Keen

Mountain Correctional Center,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CA-98-567-R)

Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 24, 1999

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles M. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Anderson appeals the district court’s order dismissing

his civil action. To the extent that Anderson’s action is considered as filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998), the

district court properly found that Anderson failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a) (West Supp.

1998). In addition, one of the Defendants, Brown and Williamson

Tobacco Corp., is not a state actor within the meaning of § 1983.

Finally, to the extent the action is premised on diversity

jurisdiction, it appears that complete diversity of citizenship did

not exist; therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction over

the action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (1994); Owen Equip. & Erection

Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### GARCIA v. GARCIA.

No. 12168.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Sept. 20, 1950.

Alaniz *&*Norris,’Alice, for appellant. ’

H. Alston Terry, Corpus Christi, for ap-pellee.

W. O. MURRAY, Chief Justice.

This suit was instituted, in the District *Court*of Nueces County of Johanna Strahl Garcia against Ponciano Garcia, seeking to annul a purported marriage between the parties which took place in Germany on April 13, 1949. Plaintiff alleged that she was a resident of Nueces County, but admitted she had not lived there for six months prior to instituting the suit. The defendant, was a resident of Jim Wells County. He filed a plea of privilege to be sued in the county of his residence which was overruled, and Ponciano Garcia has prosecuted this appeal.

Appellee contended that she was entitled to maintain this suit in Nueces County under Subdivision 16 of Article 1995, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats., reading as follows: “16. Divorce — Suits for divorce shall be brought in the county in which the plaintiff shall have resided for six months next preceding the bringing of the suit.”

*783Appellant contends that the suit is one for annulment and therefore is not a divorce suit and is not governed by the provisions of said Subdivision 16.

Regardless of what the nature of this suit may be, it seems that venue of it cannot be sustained in Nueces County. If it is a divorce suit and is controlled by Subdivision 16, the appellee cannot maintain the suit in Nueces County, because she has not lived there six months as is required. On the other hand, if it is not a divorce suit then it is not governed by Subdivision 16, and the general provisions of Article 1995, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats., would control and appellant would be entitled to be sued in the county of his residence.

We are of the opinion that this suit is one for annulment and not for divorce as that word is used in said Subdivision 16, and therefore appellant was entitled to have his plea of privilege sustained.

All of the allegations as to why the marriage should be annulled relate to ante-nuptial causes and do not relate to post-nuptial causes. A suit for 'annulment presumes that there never was a valid marriage and that therefore it should be declared void, while a suit for divorce presumes a valid marriage, but asks that that relation be dissolved for postnuptial causes. McDade v. McDade, Tex.Civ.App., 16 S.W.2d 304.

The very question here involved was certified to the Supreme Court in the case of Schneider v. Rabb, 100 Tex. 211, 97 S.W. 463, and the Supreme Court held in that case that Subdivision 16 of the venue statute did not apply to suits for, annulment. Accordingly) the judgment of the trial court overruling appellant’s plea of privilege will be reversed and judgment here rendered granting appellant’s plea of privilege, and directing the District Clerk of Nueces County to transfer this case to the District Court of Jim Wells 'County, Texas, in the manner provided for by Rule 89 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Reversed arid rendered.