alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 113 (Friday, June 12, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 32199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15670]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. GT98-49-000]


Trailblazer Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

June 8, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 3, 1998, Trailblazer Pipeline Company 
(Trailblazer) tendered for filing Title Page as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, to be effective July 3, 1998.
    Trailblazer states that the purpose of the filing is to reflect an 
address change and a name change regarding the contact person and the 
contact person's telephone and facsimile numbers.
    Trailblazer requested waiver of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission's (Commission) Regulations to the extent necessary to permit 
the tendered Title Page to become effective July 3, 1998, thirty (30) 
days from the date of the filing.
    Trailblazer states that copies of the filing are being mailed to 
Trailblazer's customers and interested state regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this 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 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as provided 
in 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.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15670 Filed 6-11-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# Ohio air power legacy remembered as Air Force celebrates 74 years

/ Published Sept. 18, 2021
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
The United States Air Force crossed another milestone Sept. 18, celebrating 74 years since the National Security Act of 1947 gave birth to the modern air service as a separate military branch from the U.S. Army. It also serves as a reminder of Ohio’s role in the innovation of flight.

The Air Force is an important part of the air power legacy originally set into motion in 1903 with the Wright Brothers’ first successful powered flight. When Dayton, Ohio-based bicycle shop owners Wilbur and Orville Wright took to the air for the first time in the skies above Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, they cemented the Buckeye State’s status as the birthplace of aviation. To learn more about the Wright Brothers, visit the Ohio History Connection.

In the century since that groundbreaking flight, ruling the skies proved critical in countless conflicts across the world. Aeronautics gained ground in the Army with the Signal Corps’ Aeronautical Division which would help mold the nation’s air operations into the most advanced in the world. Before the creation of the Air Force, the military's flying operations were handled by the Army on land and the Navy by sea. By 1926, the Army’s Aeronautical Division would grow into the Army Air Corps and in 1941 it would expand into the U.S. Army Air Forces.

The U.S. Army Air Forces success in World War II brought sharply into focus the increasing importance of and reliance on air dominance. Six years later, Congress established it as an independent branch during a post-war period of defense reorganization and the U.S. Air Force was born.

To learn more about the birth of the Air Force, see the Air Force History and Museums Program’s One Hundred Ten Years of Flight or take a virtual tour of the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force located in Dayton, Ohio.
No. 09-11520.

#### Charles Zacharie, Petitioner v. M. Chirila, et al.

562 U.S. 885, 131 S. Ct. 214,

178 L. Ed. 2d 129,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7031.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 362 Fed. Appx. 586.
No. 09-11147.

#### Luis Almonte-Palmers, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 864, 131 S. Ct. 147,

178 L. Ed. 2d 88,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6653.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Williams, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 393]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel McCullough, J.), rendered December 15, 2011, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal contempt in the second degree, and sentencing him to time served, unanimously affirmed.

The accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective. Giving the instrument “a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading” *(People v Casey,*95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), we find “as a matter of common sense and reasonable pleading” (P*eople v Davis,*13 NY3d 17, 31 [2009]) that the factual allegations were sufficient to charge defendant with intentionally violating a provision of an order of protection that directed him to stay away from the complainant’s place of employment, in that the allegations constituted facts “supporting or tending to support the charges” (CPL 100.15 [3]), and “provide[d] rea*410sonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense . . . (CPL 100.40 [1] [b].)

Concur—Acosta, J.P., Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.
#### Nelson Burke et al., Appellants, v APV Crepaco, Inc., et al., Respondents and Third-Party Plaintiffs. Twinco, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[770 NYS2d 510]

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Mahoney, J.), entered December 16, 2002, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1).

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion is granted.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for injuries sustained by Nelson Burke (plaintiff) while he was installing an exhaust fan. Plaintiff fell when the unsecured ladder from which he was working tipped over. Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiffs established that the ladder was too short and that it was unstable and “shook” when not being held. Plaintiffs thereby met their initial burden by establishing as a matter of law that the ladder failed to provide adequate protection for plaintiff and thus that defendants breached their duty pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) *(see Klein v City of New York,*89 NY2d 833, 834-835 [1996]; *Petit v Board of Educ. of W. Genesee School Dist.*307 AD2d 749 [2003]; *Dahl v Armor Bldg. Supply,*280 AD2d 970, 971 [2001]). Defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether the actions of plaintiff were the sole proximate cause of his injuries (see *Dahl,*280 AD2d at 971; *cf. Weininger v Hagedorn & Co.,*91 NY2d 958, 960 [1998], *rearg denied*92 NY2d 875 [1998]). Because plaintiffs fall was caused by the inadequacy of the equipment and not plaintiff s conduct alone, that conduct cannot be found to be the sole proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.
# DLA celebrates small business partnerships during National Small Business Week

/ Published Sept. 25, 2020
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
For over 50 years, the U.S. Small Business Administration has celebrated National Small Business Week in September to recognize the contributions of American entrepreneurs and small business owners. The Defense Logistics Agency has about 1,200 suppliers and over 80% of them are small businesses. 

President Donald Trump wrote in a Sept. 19 proclamation that National Small Business Week, held Sept. 20-26 this year, will “celebrate the success of our American entrepreneurs who have chartered their own courses to provide jobs and a bright future for millions of American workers.”

DLA Small Business Deputy Director Chris Hall said the agency uses Small Business Week to highlight small businesses’ contributions to DLA’s supply chains.

“Small businesses are essential to our ability to provide resilient support to the warfighters,” he said. “The responsiveness and flexibility that small businesses deliver supports our expeditionary capabilities and ability to rapidly deploy to meet new and evolving challenges, including DLA’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Small businesses fulfill more than half of the agency’s requirements for personal protective equipment like N95 masks, protective gowns and face shields.

To coincide with National Small Business Week, the DLA Office of Small Business Programs is encouraging small business representatives throughout the agency to share information with vendors on working with DLA and take the opportunity to learn more about small business challenges.

“DLA is identifying opportunities to improve outreach and communication with prospective suppliers to attract small businesses to address manufacturing and industrial base challenges,” DLA Small Business Director Dwight Deneal said, adding that the agency’s goal is a strong, diverse vendor base.

The DLA Office of Small Business Programs offers monthly webinars where supply chain representatives discuss their requirements and share advice on how to do business with the agency.

“The virtual nature of our program allows subject matter experts from throughout DLA to contribute seamlessly and supports participation by small businesses regardless of their physical location,” Hall said. “The monthly program also reserves time for small businesses to connect with DLA for one-on-one conversations.”

Details and registration information for the first next webinar, which will be held Oct. 14, are available at DLA’s small business webpage.
#### Verina Rose, Appellant, v Ousmane Tall et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[52 NYS3d 339]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered on or about March 30, 2016, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on plaintiff’s inability to meet the serious injury threshold under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established prima facie that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury to her lumbar spine through the af*555firmed reports of their neurologist, who found no limitations as a result of the accident, and radiologist, who, after review of plaintiff’s MRI films, found no injuries related to the subject accident *(see Green v Jones,*133 AD3d 472 [1st Dept 2015]). Defendants also relied on reports prepared by plaintiff’s treating neurologist, who found minimal limitations in range of motion at examinations conducted months after the accident.

In opposition, plaintiff submitted the report of her neurologist, who reviewed the MRI himself, and opined that plaintiff sustained a disc herniation as a result of the accident. However, his report is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact because, on his initial examination, he found normal to near-normal range of motion, which did not qualify as a serious injury (see *Eisenberg v Guzman,*101 AD3d 505 [1st Dept 2012]). Furthermore, on a more recent examination, that neurologist found a deficit in one plane and normal to near-normal range of motion in all other planes, and failed to explain the inconsistencies between his earlier findings of almost full range of motion and his present findings of additional deficits, rendering his opinion speculative *(see Santos v Perez,*107 AD3d 572, 574 [1st Dept 2013]; *Colon v Torres,*106 AD3d 458 [1st Dept 2013]). Plaintiff’s showing of relatively minor limitations was insufficient to sustain a serious injury claim *(see Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]; *Cattouse v Smith,*146 AD3d 670, 672 [1st Dept 2017]).

Defendants also demonstrated that plaintiff did not suffer a 90/180-day claim by relying on her deposition testimony that she was confined to home and bed for just two days after the accident *(see Frias v Son Tien Liu,*107 AD3d 589, 590 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15353]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 08/78-0153]


Bluestem Capital Partners II, L.P.; Notice of Issuance of a Small 
Business Investment Company License

    On February 18, 1997, an application was filed by Bluestem Capital 
Partners II, L.P. at 122 South Phillips Avenue, Suite 300, Sioux Falls, 
South Dakota 57104, with the Small Business Administration (SBA) 
pursuant to Section 107.300 of the Regulations governing small business 
investment companies (13 CFR 107.300 (1997)) for a license to operate 
as a small business investment company.
    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Section 301(c) of the 
Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, after having 
considered the application and all other pertinent information, SBA 
issued License No. 08/78-0153 on May 22, 1998, to Bluestem Capital 
Partners II, L.P., to operate as a small business investment company.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 59.011, Small 
Business Investment Companies)

    Dated: May 22, 1998.
Don A. Christensen,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 98-15353 Filed 6-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**STATEMENT
      OF CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE**




Pursuant
      to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Andrew
      Carr Conway, Jr., chief financial officer of Axion Power International, Inc
      (the
“Company”), hereby certifies that:




The
      Company’s Form 10-KSB Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the
“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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


/s/
                Andrew Carr Conway, Jr.Andrew
              Carr Conway, Jr., Chief Financial OfficerDated: March 31, 2008
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Cuatlal, Appellant.

[58 NYS3d 482]—

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered December 5, 2012, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant preserved for appellate review his argument that criminally negligent homicide should have been charged as a lesser-included offense of manslaughter in the first degree *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]). However, the contention is without merit.

To be entitled to a charge on a lesser-included offense, a defendant must establish that (1) it was impossible to commit the greater crime without concomitantly committing the lesser offense by the same conduct, and (2) there is a reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater *(see*CPL 300.50 [1]; *People v James,*11 NY3d 886, 888 [2008]; *People v Van Norstrand,*85 NY2d 131, 135 [1995]). “In determining whether such a reasonable view exists, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to defendant” *(People v Martin,*59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]). A request to charge a lesser-included offense must be granted if there is a reasonable view of the evidence to support it *(see People v Van Norstrand,*85 NY2d at 136).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s request to charge criminally negligent homicide as a lesser-included offense of manslaughter in the first degree *(see People v Randolph,*81 NY2d 868, 869 [1993]; *People v Bruno,*127 AD3d 1101, 1102 [2015]; *People v Hill,*266 AD2d 473, 474 [1999]; *People v Holloway,*262 AD2d 500 [1999]; *People v Cameron,*244 AD2d 350, 351 [1997]; *People v Stephens,*198 AD2d 245, 245-246 [1993], *affd*84 NY2d 990 [1994]; *cf. People v Heide,*84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; *People v Dragoon,*256 AD2d 653, 653-654 [1998]).

Chambers, J.P., Cohen, Duify and Connolly, JJ., concur.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. '1350

Solely
for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C.
'1350, I, the
undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of Pierre Foods, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge,that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended May 31, 2003 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

|                       
|-----------------------
|/S/ NORBERT E. WOODHAMS
|                       
|Norbert E. Woodhams    
|March 9, 2004          

Solely
for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. '1350, I, the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Pierre Foods, Inc. (the Company),
hereby certify, based on my knowledge,that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
of the Company for the quarter ended May 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                     
|---------------------
|/S/ PAMELA M. WITTERS
|                     
|Pamela M. Witters    
|March 9, 2004        

27
160 A.3d 694

#### PETRO-LUBRICANT TESTING LABORATORIES, INC., AND JOHN WINTERMUTE, PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. ASHER ADELMAN, D/B/A EBOSSWATCH.COM, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

February 13, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

*137It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted.
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2184

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the employment of

social workers in the Veterans Health Administration on a fee basis.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 14 (legislative day, JUNE 7), 1994

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the

employment of social workers in the Veterans Health

Administration on a fee basis.

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO EMPLOY SOCIAL WORKERS.

4 Paragraph (2) of section 7405(a) of title 38, United

5 States Code, is amended—

6 (1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as sub7 paragraph (D); and

8 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the fol9 lowing new subparagraph (C):

10 ‘‘(C) Social workers.’’.
2

•S 2184 IS

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-26-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-2000
<CASH>                                         338,307
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,982,135
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                            4,316
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                                  0
<PP&E>                                          90,348
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,798,236
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<PAYABLES>                                   3,051,663
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                            378,045
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,764
<OTHER-SE>                                     262,404
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,798,236
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                    0
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                           242,812
<COMMISSIONS>                                  389,742
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                   21,897
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              89,838
<COMPENSATION>                                 133,339
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (20,264)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    (20,264)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,626)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

 

**                                                THE MONARCH CEMENT COMPANY                                                   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 Quarterly Report of The Monarch Cement Company (the"Company") onForm 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31,2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the datehereof(the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the dateindicatedbelow, hereby certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuanttoSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to The MonarchCement Company and will be retained by The MonarchCement Company and furnishedto the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

Dated:  May 10, 2007

|   |   |  /s/ Walter H. Wulf, Jr.                 Walter H. Wulf, Jr.    President and     Chairman of the Board 
                                                   

 

 

  |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|