alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1783

AN ACT

To amend the Mount Rushmore Commemorative

tional Memorial.to be used to renovate the Mount Rushmore NaCoin Act to allow proceeds from the sale of coins
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1783

AN ACT

To amend the Mount Rushmore Commemorative Coin Act

to allow proceeds from the sale of coins to be used

to renovate the Mount Rushmore National Memorial..

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 1783 ES

1 SECTION 1. USE OF PROCEEDS FROM MOUNT RUSHMORE

2 COMMEMORATIVE COINS.

3 (a) DISTRIBUTION OF SURCHARGES.—Section 8 of

4 the Mount Rushmore Commemorative Coin Act (104 Stat.

5 314; 31 U.S.C. 5112 note) is amended by striking para6 graphs (1) and (2) and inserting the following:

7 ‘‘(1) the first $18,750,000 shall be paid during

8 fiscal year 1994 by the Secretary to the Society to

9 assist the Society’s efforts to improve, enlarge, and

10 renovate the Mount Rushmore National Memorial;

11 and

12 ‘‘(2) the remainder shall be returned to the

13 Federal Treasury for purposes of reducing the na14 tional debt.’’.

15 (b) RETROACTIVE EFFECT.—If, prior to the enact16 ment of this Act, any amount of surcharges have been re17 ceived by the Secretary of the Treasury and paid into the

18 United States Treasury pursuant to section 8(1) of the

19 Mount Rushmore Commemorative Coin Act, as in effect

20 prior to the enactment of this Act, that amount shall be

21 paid out of the Treasury to the extent necessary to comply

22 with section 8(1) of the Mount Rushmore Commemorative

23 Coin Act, as in effect after the enactment of this Act.
3

•S 1783 ES

1 Amounts paid pursuant to the preceding sentence shall be

2 out of funds not otherwise appropriated.

Passed the Senate November 24 (legislative day, November 23), 1993.

Attest:

Secretary.
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|Eastport, ID Liquefied Natural Gas Imports from Canada (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|Eastport, ID Liquefied Natural Gas Imports from Canada (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2018                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     | 1   |    
|2021                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     | 1  
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
**Exhibit 32.1**

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

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Mercantile Bankshares Corporation (the “Company”)for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward J.Kelly, III, the Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to and forpurposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1)                                      TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)  or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2)                                      Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Edward J. Kelly, III |   |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Edward J. Kelly, III     |   |   |
| Chief Executive Officer       |   |   |
| October 30, 2006              |   |   |

 

----
#### Com. v. Ialongo

12/01/2015

488 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 121 A.3d 1136
#### Williamson v Hodson

4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1488

denied
Granite Construction Company 

1900 Glendale A venue 

Sparks, NV 89431 

January 14, 2016 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Amendment to Exemption 12541 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and 

Part II of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-1644. 

Dear Madam, Sir, 

Granite Construction Company currently holds an Exemption numbered 12541 (hereinafter the 

Exemption) issued for the purpose of performing aerial imaging and data collection. Granite 

Construction Company herby requests an amendment to that Exemption to include additional 

small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) that fully complies with the conditions of the Exemption 

to support client requests (public interest). 

The requested system (to be used under the same terms and conditions contained in the original 

Exemption) to be added to our existing Exemption is cited below. 

• senseFly - eBee 

The eBee system has been previously approved for numerous entities through the 333 exemption 

process and manuals are on file. Granite Construction Company states that no conditions or 

limitation from our original request have changed and all operations of the additional UAS will be 

in full compliance with the terms and condition of the Exemption. 

Please contact Sergio Callegari, Construction Technologies Engineer, 775-352-5417, 

Sergio.callegari@gcinc.com should you have any questions concerning this request for an 

amendment to the Exemption. 

4~ 

Sergio Callegari 

Construction Technologies Engineer
JAMES VANCAMP,

Appellant,

v.

DECISION HR 30, INC., 

FWCIGA/FLORIDA WORKERS' 

COMPENSATION GUARANTY 

ASSOCIATION, AND USIS,

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-4325

_____________________________/

Opinion filed March 20, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims.

Shelley H. Punancy, Judge.

Date of Accident: July 23, 2007.

Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.

Micheal A. Edwards of Peterson Bernard, West Palm Beach, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, MARSTILLER and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
|                                                                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                     
|View History:                                                                                      
|                                                                                                   
|Price of Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports by Vessel to Barbados (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|Price of Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports by Vessel to Barbados (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                   

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        | --     | 10.12  | 10.40  | 10.39  | 10.39 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 10.39  | 10.39  | 10.48  | 10.39  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
|                                                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                   
|View History:                                                                                    
|                                                                                                 
|No chart available.                                                                              
|No chart available.                                                                              
|                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                 
|Price of Elba Island, GA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Chile (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2020                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |     |     |     | W   |     |     | W   | W  
|2021                                                                                                                              |     |     | W   |     | W   |     | W   |     | W   | W   |     |    
|2023                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |     |     | W   |     |     |     |     |    
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### Warren Redlich, Respondent, v Roger Stone et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[55 NYS3d 651]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, *433J.), entered April 22, 2016, which, inter alia, denied the respective motions of defendant Carl Paladino and defendants Roger Stone and Michael Caputo for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a 2010 gubernatorial candidate, commenced this defamation action against, among others, Stone, who was working on the campaign of one of plaintiff’s opponents, defendant Kristin Davis, and against Caputo, the campaign manager for defendant Paladino. The action arose from a “Sexual Predator Alert” sent to New York residents in advance of the election, which claimed that plaintiff was a “sick twisted pervert” who “constitutes a public danger,” and urged people to call the police if they saw him. A group called “People for a Safer New York” took responsibility for the mailer. Plaintiff alleged that defendants orchestrated the mailer in a concerted effort to cause him reputational harm, and to improve their odds in the 2010 gubernatorial election.

Contrary to defendants’ contentions, plaintiff raised triable issues of fact in opposition to their sworn denials that they had any involvement in the offensive mailer. The record includes evidence that the offensive mailer was mailed contemporaneously with a campaign mailing from Davis, and shared the same postal permit number on Staten Island, thereby raising an issue of fact as to whether defendants were involved with the subject mailer. Plaintiff also submitted an affidavit from a journalist who interviewed Stone and quoted him as saying that he “urged” People for a Safer New York to send the mailer, a fact that Stone did not deny at his deposition. The financial filing of Paladino’s campaign, and numerous emails, reveal the close entanglements both financially and strategically between defendants, all of which raise questions of fact as to defendants’ involvement in the mailer.

Furthermore, although it was notarized in Florida and lacked a certificate of conformity pursuant to CPLR 2309 (c), the motion court properly considered plaintiff’s affidavit in opposition (see *Matapos Tech. Ltd. v Compania Andina de Comercio Ltda, 68*AD3d 672, 673 [1st Dept 2009]). In his affidavit, plaintiff stated that Stone admitted to him in 2014 that he and the other defendants orchestrated the subject mailer, thus creating a credibility issue that should not be resolved on summary judgment (see *Staley El. Co. v Kuhacka,*188 AD2d 252, 253 [1st Dept 1992]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Mazzarelli, Web-*434ber, Kahn and Kern, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10.40

[COMPANY LETTERHEAD]




                              CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
                                    ADDENDUM

         This Amendment (this "Amendment") to Consultant Agreement dated May 21,
2001, and amended on December 30, 2002, (collectively, the "Agreement") is made
this 30th day of December 2003 between eResearchTechnology, Inc. ("Company") and
Joel Morganroth ("Executive").

         Company and Executive are parties to the Agreement. Company and
Executive now desire to amend a certain provision of the Agreement as set forth
in this Amendment, to become effective on January 1, 2004.

         Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning
given to them in the Agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE, Company and Executive, each intending to be legally
bound hereby, agree as follows:

1.       The Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

         1.1 Section 3. a) is hereby amended and restated to read in its
entirety as follows:

              Base fees shall be $240,000/year payable in twelve equal
              installments of $20,000 by the 15th of each month. Consultant will
              be eligible for incentive compensation to be determined by the
              Board of Directors.

2.       Miscellaneous

         2.1 All references to the Agreement in any documents and instruments
executed by the parties in connection with the Agreement shall be deemed to
refer to the Agreement as the same has been amended through the date hereof, and
as the same may be amended in the future.

         2.2 This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and
each such counterpart shall be deemed an original, but all such counterparts
shall constitute but one and the same agreement.


<PAGE>



         2.3 The Agreement and this Amendment may be modified or amended by the
parties hereto only by a written agreement executed by both parties.

         2.4 Except as expressly amended hereby, all of the terms and provisions
of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified
and confirmed in every aspect.

         2.5 This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the internal laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, without regard to
conflicts of laws principles.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Amendment to be
executed on the date first written above.

By: Joel Morganroth                     By: Bruce Johnson
    ---------------------------             ---------------------------------
    Joel Morganroth                         Bruce Johnson
                                            Title:  Sr. Vice President
                                                    & Chief Financial Officer

                                       2
Exhibit 99.1

                            MICROPAC INDUSTRIES, INC.

                             CERTICATION 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 Micropac  Industries,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending May 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Connie
Wood, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


/s/ Connie Wood
------------------------------
Connie Wood, President and CEO
(Principal Executive Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

LAURENN HARVIN,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 406 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
2017-1444.

#### In re Application of Ohio Edison Co.

Public Utilities Commission, No. 14-1297-EL-SSO. On motion of Ohio Edison Company, the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, and the Toledo Edison Company to consolidate this cause with No. 2017-1664. Motion granted. Briefing in Nos. 2017-1444 and 2017-1664 shall be consolidated. Appellants’ brief shall be due February 5, 2018.
#### Alexander Weicht, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Appellants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[49 NYS3d 680]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered December 21, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and denied defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing that claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

“A plaintiff’s inability to testify exactly as to how an accident occurred does not require dismissal where negligence and causation can be established with circumstantial evidence” *(Patrikis v Arniotis,*129 AD3d 928, 930 [2d Dept 2015]; *Angamarca v New York City Partnership Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc.,*56 AD3d 264, 264 [1st Dept 2008]). Plaintiff established his entitlement to partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, despite his admitted inability to remember the specifics of the accident, through the submission of a workers’ compensation report and the statement of defendant Rockmore Contracting Corp.’s owner, both of which established that the accident occurred when the bottom of the ladder from which plaintiff was descending suddenly slipped out from under him, causing him to fall to the ground *(see Ortiz v Burke Ave. Realty, Inc.,*126 AD3d 577, 577 [1st Dept 2015]; *Nascimento v Bridgehampton Constr. Corp.,*86 AD3d 189, 191 [1st Dept 2011]).

Defendants did not raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to plaintiff’s prima facie case, and merely challenged the evidence submitted by plaintiff in support of his motion. *552However, defendants may not for the first time on appeal challenge the admissibility of the reports submitted by plaintiff. Nevertheless, the workers’ compensation report was properly considered by the motion court because it was properly authenticated as a business record by the person who prepared the report — who established that it was prepared in the regular course of business contemporaneously with the accident— and was based on the personal knowledge of someone who witnessed the accident *(see*CPLR 4518 [a]; *People v Kennedy,*68 NY2d 569, 579-580 [1986]; *cf. Acevedo v Williams Scotsman, Inc.,*116 AD3d 416, 417 [1st Dept 2014]). Moreover, testimony about a statement made by Rockmore’s owner in a report to OSHA, detailing how the accident occurred, was admissible as a vicarious admission of an employee *(see Brusca v El Al Israel Airlines,*75 AD2d 798, 800 [2d Dept 1980]; *Matter of Anthus v Rail Joint Co.,*193 App Div 571 [3d Dept 1920], *affd*231 NY 557 [1921]; *see generally*Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-208 at 515 [Farrell 11th ed 1995]).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.
No. 12-8355.

#### McNeely *v.*Chappell, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.