alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 206 (Thursday, October 24, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84862-84863]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24636]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CIVIL RIGHTS COLD CASE RECORDS REVIEW BOARD

[Agency Docket Number: CRCCRRB-2025-0002-N]


Notice of Formal Determination on Records Release

AGENCY: Civil Rights Cold Case Records Review Board.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Civil Rights Cold Case Records Review Board received 404 
pages of records from the National Archives and Records Administration 
(NARA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) related to seven 
civil rights cold case incidents. NARA and the FBI did not propose any 
postponements of disclosure. On October 11, 2024, the Review Board 
determined that the records should be publicly disclosed in the Civil 
Rights Cold Case Records Collection. By issuing this notice, the Review 
Board complies with section 7(c)(4) of the Civil Rights Cold Case 
Records Collection Act of 2018 that requires the Review Board to 
publish in the Federal Register its determinations on the disclosure or 
postponement of records in the Collection no more than 14 days after 
the date of its decision.

[[Page 84863]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephannie Oriabure, Chief of Staff, 
Civil Rights Cold Case Records Review Board, 1800 F Street NW, 
Washington, DC 20405, (771) 221-0014, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6c05020a032c0f0300080f0d1f091e090f031e081f420b031a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7b12151d143b1814171f181a081e091e1814091f08551c140d">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of
        Incident  identifier                Agency             pages
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023-002-010........................  NARA                            60
2023-002-010........................  FBI                              1
2024-003-007........................  NARA                             3
2024-003-021........................  NARA                           174
2024-003-026........................  NARA                            23
2024-003-045........................  NARA                            34
2024-003-048........................  NARA                             3
2024-003-049........................  NARA                           106
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Authority: Public Law 115-426, 132 Stat. 5489 (44 U.S.C. 2107)

    Dated: October 17, 2024.
Stephannie Oriabure,
Chief of Staff.
[FR Doc. 2024-24636 Filed 10-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-SY-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Martha O’Connell, Appellant, v. D. B. Shontz, John A. Magoun, Jr., and N. Jenness.

Libel: notice of delinquent taxes. A notice to a taxpayer pursuant to Code, sections 1374 and 1385, relative to the assessment of omitted property, is not libelous in the absence of any charge of fraud on the part of the taxpayer in withholding the same.

*710*Appeal from Woodbury District*Court.— HoN. F. E. Gaynok, Judge.

Wednesday, March 8, 1905.

The petition alleges: That, at tbe tim.e of the transaction complained of, the defendant Shontz was employed by the county to discover property omitted from the tax lists, Magoun was treasurer, and Jenness was auditor. That these three, “ contriving and intending to injure and defame the plaintiff,” maliciously composed and mailed her a notice that the officers had been apprised that moneys and credits to the amount of $2,800 belonging to' plaintiff had been omitted from taxation for the year 1903, and requiring her to appear before the county auditor at a date named and show cause why the same should not be listed and assessed against her, and that, upon her failure to do so, the same would be placed on the books; and demand was made for payment, and a statement that unless made, proceedings would be commenced after the lapse of thirty days to collect. That she received the notice, and /¡was greatly distressed by the accusations contained therein, and was obliged to travel to Sioux City and appear before the auditor, and was obliged to incur expense in making the trip, in consulting an attorney, and in loss of time, to her great damage. . The defendants demurred to this petition on the grounds (1) that the notice was not libelous; (2) that the defendants were acting as agents and officers of the county; and (3) that there was no allegation that the acts were malicious. The demurrer was sustained, and plaintiff appeals. — •

*Affirmed.*

*Sawyer & Turner,*for appellant.

*Dari Edmunds, McCoy & McCoy,*and *Strong & Whitney,*for appellees.

*711Ladd, J.—

The notice sent to the plaintiff was in strict conformity with sections 1374 and 1385 of the Code, as amended by chapters 47 and 50, pages 31 and 33, of the Twenty-Eighth General Assembly. It was such a notice as the law authorized “whenever property subject to taxation is withheld, overlooked or from any other cause is not listed or assessed.” Even though defendants' so intended, it did not purport to state the reason for the omission; and there is no ground for saying that it contained, directly or by implication, a charge of cheating and defrauding the state and country, or of having committed perjury in swearing to a false assessment. In the absence of any innuendo, it cannot be held to have been libelous. This is the only question raised in argument on the appeal, and in this respect the ruling on the demurrer was correct. But see *Hollenbeck v. Ris*tine, 105 Iowa, *488.*— Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER'S CERTIFICATIONS  PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James Hicks, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Great Lakes REIT;

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:



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 the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



|Date: March 10, 2004 | /s/JAMES HICKSJames Hicks Chief Financial
Officer
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

SEAN MICHAEL GUADAGNO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2722

[July 8, 2021]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Robert E. Belanger, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 56-2013-CF-003565A.

Sean Michael Guadagno, Carrabelle, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Paul Patti, III, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, LEVINE and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 10.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


To the Stockholders and Directors of
Advantage America, Inc.

We  hereby  consent  to  the  use  in the Prospectus constituting a part of this
Registration Statement of Form 10SB of our report dated August 16, 2001 relating
to  the financial statements of Advantage America, Inc., for the year ended June
30,  2001.

/s/ Sprayberry, Barnes, Marietta & Luttrell

Sprayberry, Barnes, Marietta & Luttrell
Bakersfield, California
October 19, 2001


<PAGE>
---

---

# Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report
of B.V.R. Systems (1998) Ltd (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Reuven Shahar, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

|1. | The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 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
Company.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: June 4, 2009

| |  | /s/ Reuven Shahar 
Chief Financial Officer and Vice President, Finance
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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



---

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                1903
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        17125
<ALLOWANCES>                                          1429
<INVENTORY>                                          23333
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     42948
<PP&E>                                               28083
<DEPRECIATION>                                       18106
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       53371
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                82128
<BONDS>                                              11175
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 3000
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               111
<OTHER-SE>                                          (34294)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         53371
<SALES>                                               3070
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      3070
<CGS>                                                 2179
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         4748
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       (48)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      (298)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    (960)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (4865)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           (62)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (4927)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          81
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (4846)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.43)



</TABLE>
#### Estate of Turnock : Turnock and others, Appellants, vs. Northwestern Loan & Trust Company and others, Respondents.

*January 21*

February *15, 1944.*

*638For the appellants there were briefs by *D. T. Smiley*of Woodstock, Illinois, and *George W. Taylor*of Kenosha, and oral argument by *Mr. Smiley.*

*Arthur B. Ames*of Kenosha, for the respondent Northwestern Loan & Trust Company.

For the respondent Charles E. Turnock there was a brief by *Cavanagh, Stephenson & Mittelstaed*of Kenosha, and oral argument by *Roy S. Stephenson.*

*639Fritz, J.

Upon due consideration of the appellants’ and the respondent Charles E. Turnock’s assignments of error, and their contentions in relation thereto, it is the conclusion of the court that the judgment, as well as the order, appealed from must be affirmed; and should be affirmed under Rule 64 without opinion.

This memorandum is filed solely for the purpose of disposing of the request and prayer in the brief of the respondent administrator, Northwestern Loan & Trust Company, that, because it has delivered the trust funds to the trustee Juliani, in accordance with the final judgment, and has no funds belonging to1 the estate available to pay its expenses on this appeal, there should be allowed by this court such expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees; and there should be designated the funds from which such expenses shall be paid. In these respects it is the conclusion of the court that the respondent is entitled to have such expenses allowed, in so far as they were necessarily and reasonably incurred; and that the amount thereof shall be determined and paid to the respondent in the manner stated in the mandate.

*By the Court.*— The order entered January 14, 1943, and the judgment entered March 3, 1943, are affirmed with costs to be taxed against-the appellants. In addition there shall be paid to the respondent, Northwestern Loan & Trust Company, out of the trust funds assigned by the judgment to Chris A. Juliani, as trustee, the amount of such other expenses as that respondent necessarily and reasonably incurred on this appeal, including its attorney’s fees; all of which shall be determined by the county court upon the remanding of the record.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            5  
       
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                       JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                         SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               9,891,333
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         3,896,032
<ALLOWANCES>                                            481,902
<INVENTORY>                                             358,120
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     14,748,876
<PP&E>                                                3,021,914
<DEPRECIATION>                                          903,379
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       34,616,645
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 9,378,378
<BONDS>                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                 50,749
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                           20,431,042
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         34,616,645
<SALES>                                              14,017,001
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     14,017,001
<CGS>                                                11,480,760
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         7,981,626
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      998,717
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (6,305,599)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (6,305,599)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (6,305,599)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             (2.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0   

        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1 - President Certification (Section 906)

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


I am the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of
EZJR, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company").  I am delivering this
certificate in connection with the Form 10-Q?A of the Company for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010 and filed with the U. S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("Form 10-Q").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my
knowledge, the Form 10-Q/A fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


   /s/ T J Jesky
----------------------------------
       T J Jesky
Its:   Principal Executive Officer
       Principal Financial Officer



Date  July 26,2010
      ------------

<PAGE>
# FAA 333 Petition

I own a videography business called Zack Huggins Videography. My fiancé is a licensed real estate agent and a good friend of mine builds pools for luxury homes. W e are all three based in the Scottsdale, AZ area. I would like to legally own and operate a drone/UAC to capture video and photos for commercial use (real estate, events and potentially news and any other business related use of drones for photo and video). I k now that the FAA us strict guidelines and rules that PICs and VOs need to follow. I want to do this legally for my business. Please let me know what I need to do in order to use a drone/UAC and to comply with the FAA

.
<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 this Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-Q/A to the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of SEEC, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
14, 2003 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and dates listed
below, 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
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

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


Date:  September 18, 2003                   /s/ RICHARD J. GOLDBACH
                                -----------------------------------------------
                                              Richard J. Goldbach
                                      Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
#### Winters v. Page County.

1. Pleading: attaching copy Op account: demurrer. Under § 2648 of the Code, a petition in an action upon an account is bad on demurrer, if a copy of the account is not embodied in or attached to the petition, even though the account is so simple, and so fully stated in the petition, that a copy might appear to be superfluous.

*Appeal from Page District Court.*

Monday, December 13.

Action for services alleged to have been rendered in nursing persons sick with small-pox.' The plaintiff alleged that he was engaged in service continually seventeen days, *301from June 5, 1885, to June "22, 1885, and that bis services were reasonably worth the sum of $6.50 per day. No copy of an account was attached to the petition, and the defendant demurred to the petition on the ground of a want of such copy. The court sustained the demurrer. The plaintiff elected to stand upon his petition, and judgment was rendered against him for costs. He appeals.

*Glarlc cé Parslow,*for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Adams, Oh. J.

Section 2648 of the Code provides that where an action is brought upon an account, and no copy is incorporated into or attached to the petition, the defendant may demur upon that ground. The necessity for setting out a copy of the account sued on, where the claim is so simple and fully stated as in this case, does not veiy clearly appear, except that it seems to be provided by statute, and we do not feel at liberty to ignore its provision. It is contended, to be sure, that the statute is substantially complied with, by reason of the fact that a detailed statement appears in the body of the petition; but it cannot be claimed that such statement is a copy of an account. The statute seems to contemplate a formal statement. It may be incorporated into the petition; but if it is thus incorporated into it, it should, we think, be of the same character as a copy prepared to be attached as an exhibit. Without a doubt such succinct formal statement proves in many cases to be a matter of great convenience. This would always be so where the account is long, and the items various and charged under different dates. Now, while the present case is very simple, and a copy of a formal account could hardly serve any useful purpose, we do not feel at liberty to depart from the rule. If what is done in this case should be held to be a substantial compliance, courts would be called upon in more troublesome cases to determine *302what is a substantial compliance, and it will be seen at once that no very good rule could be laid down.

In our opinion it is better that the letter of the statute should be strictly adhered to. We think that the demurrer was rightly sustained.

Affirmed.