alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 118 (Friday, June 19, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16388]


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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1218-DR]


South Dakota; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of South Dakota (FEMA-1218-DR), dated June 1, 1998, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 3, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madge Dale, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster for the State 
of South Dakota, is hereby amended to include the following areas among 
those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of June 1, 1998:

    The counties of Hanson and McCook for Categories C through G 
under the Public Assistance program (already designated for 
Individual Assistance and Categories A and B under the Public 
Assistance program).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community 
Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis 
Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression 
Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 
83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 
83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)
Lacy E. Suiter,
Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 98-16388 Filed 6-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36101-36102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15413]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge 
Reservation

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge 
Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 
Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in 
the Federal Register.

DATES: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 at 6 p.m.

ADDRESSES: DOE Information Center, 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee 37830.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia J. Halsey, Federal 
Coordinator, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 
2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 576-4025; Fax (865) 576-
2347 or e-mail: halseypj@oro.doe.gov or check the Web site at 
www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make 
recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.
    Tentative Agenda: The main meeting presentation will be a training 
overview of the EM SSAB in Oak Ridge, and its role in the DOE-EM 
program.
    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Oak Ridge, welcomes the 
attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will 
make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or 
special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a 
disability, please contact Patricia J. Halsey at least seven days in 
advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written 
statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the 
meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to the 
agenda item should contact Patricia J. Halsey at the address or 
telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days 
prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include 
the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer 
is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate 
the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public 
comments will

[[Page 36102]]

be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.
    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Patricia 
J. Halsey at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will 
also be available at the following Web site: http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab/minutes.htm.

    Issued at Washington, DC on June 14, 2011.
LaTanya R. Butler,
Acting Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-15413 Filed 6-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
Exhibit 99.1
                            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 Ameritrans Capital Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the six months ended December 31, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Gary C. Granoff, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial
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/ Gary C. Granoff
-------------------
Gary C. Granoff
President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer

February 14, 2003


                                      -18-
2016-0907.

#### In re D.S.

Franklin App. No. 15AP-487, 2016-0hio-2810. Reported at 152 Ohio St.3d 109, 2017-Ohio-8289, 93 N.E.3d 937. On motion for reconsideration. Motion fails for want of four votes.

*1528Kennedy, French, and DeWine, JJ., would grant the motion.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
# C_2013156EN.01005501.xml

| 1.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/55

---

Action brought on 8 March 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-21/13)

2013/C 156/101

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: T. Bontinck and S. Greco, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision relating to the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme on the basis of the proposed calculation applying the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare Article 9 of the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Article 9 of the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials unlawful;

| — | In consequence, annul the decision of the Secretariat General of the Council of 23 May 2012 establishing a proposal for the transfer of pension rights under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations on the basis of the GIP of 11.10.2011 to the applicant as signed by her on 19 July 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

In consequence, annul the decision of the Secretariat General of the Council of 23 May 2012 establishing a proposal for the transfer of pension rights under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations on the basis of the GIP of 11.10.2011 to the applicant as signed by her on 19 July 2012;

| — | Order the defendant to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal.

---
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

        I, Catherine Thompson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Ohana Enterprises, Inc.;

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

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

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

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

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

         c. disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant's
         internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
         registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal
         quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,
         or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting;

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

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

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


Date: October 13, 2004


    /s/ Catherine Thompson
        ------------------
        Catherine Thompson
        Chief Financial Officer
#### Joseph Pomerantsev, Appellant, v Vladimir Kodinsky, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[64 NYS3d 571]

*656In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Baynes, J.), dated July 28, 2016, which granted the motion of the defendant Vladimir Kodinsky pursuant to CPLR 510 (1) and 511 to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Richmond County.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion of the defendant Vladimir Kodinsky pursuant to CPLR 510 (1) and 511 to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Richmond County is denied, and the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, is directed to deliver to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, all papers filed in this action and certified copies of all minutes and entries *{see*CPLR 511 [d]).

CPLR 503 (a) provides, in relevant part, that “the place of trial shall be in the county in which one of the parties resided when it was commenced.” “For venue purposes, a residence is where a party stays for some time with a bona fide intent to retain the place as a residence for some length of time and with some degree of permanency” *(Ellis v Wirshba,*18 AD3d 805, 805 [2005]; *see Johnson v Finkelstein,*145 AD3d 863, 863 [2016]; *Patton v Malychev,*132 AD3d 829, 830 [2015]; *Forbes v Rubinovich,*94 AD3d 809, 810 [2012]). In the context of venue, a party may have more than one residence *(see*CPLR 503 [a]; *Patton v Malychev,*132 AD3d at 830).

“In order to prevail on a motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (1) to change venue, a defendant must show that the plaintiffs choice of venue is improper, and also that the defendant’s choice of venue is proper” *(Deas v Ahmed,*120 AD3d 750, 750 [2014]; *see*CPLR 511 [b]; *Kidd v 22-11 Realty, LLC,*142 AD3d 488, 489 [2016]; *Gonzalez v Sun Moon Enters. Corp.,*53 AD3d 526 [2008]). Here, in support of his motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (1) and 511 to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Richmond County, the defendant Vladimir Kodinsky failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff did not reside in Kings County at the time of commencement of the action *(see Deas v Ahmed,*120 AD3d at 751; *Chehab v Roitman,*120 AD3d 736, 737-738 [2014]). Hence, Kodinsky failed to meet his initial burden, and the Supreme Court should have denied his motion to change the venue of the action.

Balkin, J.P., Hinds-Radix, Duffy and Connolly, JJ., concur.
No. 10-5001.

#### Bernadette Garcia, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 898, 131 S. Ct. 224,

178 L. Ed. 2d 150,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6284.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 376 Fed. Appx. 754.
#### Joseph Sexton, Respondent, v Cincinnati Incorporated, Also Known as Cincinnati, Inc., et al., Defendants. *1409Namco Controls Corp. et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs - Respondents, v Phoenix Metal Fabricating, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. Rockford Systems, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v Phoenix Metal Fabricating, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. Cincinnati Incorporated, Also Known as Cincinnati, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v Phoenix Metal Fabricating, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Joseph Sexton, Respondent, v NI Jef Electric Incorporated, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, and Phoenix Metal Fabricating, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. (Action No. 2.)

[769 NYS2d 773]

Appeal from that part of an order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County (Gerace, J.), entered February 3, 2003, that denied the motion of third-party defendant seeking summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaints.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of third-party defendant, Phoenix Metal Fabricating, Inc. (Phoenix), seeking summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaints. Plaintiff commenced these actions to recover damages for injuries he sustained during the course of his employment with Phoenix when his hands were crushed by a 90-ton press brake machine, and defendants commenced the third-party actions at issue herein. In support of its motion, Phoenix contended that, as a matter of law, plaintiff did not sustain a grave injury within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 *(see Castro v United Container Mach. Group,*96 NY2d 398 [2001]). Even assuming, arguendo, that Phoenix met its initial burden, we conclude that defendants-third-party plaintiffs raised an issue of fact whether plaintiff sustained a loss of use of his hands that is “permanent and total” and thus whether he sustained a grave injury within the meaning of the statute (Workers’ Compensation Law § 11; *see generally Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). They submitted *1410the affidavit of their medical expert, who determined that plaintiff has not retained even minimal use of his hands *(cf. Trimble v Hawker Dayton Corp.,*307 AD2d 452 [2003]). Although Phoenix presented evidence that plaintiff is able to perform certain limited activities with his hands, the medical expert for defendants-third-party plaintiffs stated in his affidavit that plaintiff actually performs those activities with his arms, using the adaptive techniques of an amputee. Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0001064435
<NAME>                                         Cluett American Corp
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                         4,198
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  50,938
<ALLOWANCES>                                   10,504
<INVENTORY>                                    42,980
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               110,324
<PP&E>                                         27,844
<DEPRECIATION>                                 6,838
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 176,403
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          74,351
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    62,154
<COMMON>                                       1
<OTHER-SE>                                     (176,490)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   176,403
<SALES>                                        126,109
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               126,109
<CGS>                                          80,191
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  33,662
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               114
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             21,127
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,985)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   798
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,783)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (13,259)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (23,042)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

          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 Praxis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending November 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David Stadnyk, President, Secretary and Treasurer (Principal Executive and
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:

(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/ DAVID STADNYK
------------------------------------------
David Stadnyk
President, and Treasurer























                                       16
#### Berta Morales, Appellant, v New York City Board/Department of Education, Respondent.

[51 NYS3d 873]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered March 22, 2016, which, among other things, denied petitioner’s petition to vacate an arbitration award, dated March 27, 2015, terminating petitioner’s employment as a tenured teacher upon finding her guilty of multiple disciplinary charges, confirmed the award, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 75, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The arbitration award was supported by the record and was *469not arbitrary and capricious *(see e.g. Matter of Davis v New York City Bd./Dept. of Educ.,*137 AD3d 716, 717 [1st Dept 2016], *lv denied*29 NY3d 903 [2017]; *see also Matter of Benjamin v New York City Bd./Dept. of Educ.,*105 AD3d 677, 678 [1st Dept 2013]). The hearing officer issued a detailed decision in which she thoroughly analyzed the facts, evaluated credibility, and arrived at a reasoned conclusion *(Davis,*137 AD3d at 717). Petitioner’s due process rights were not violated; she was provided with appropriate notice, was represented by counsel at a 13-day hearing and had the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses *(id.).*Petitioner’s claim of bias by the hearing officer is speculative and unsupported by the evidence *(id.).*

The penalty of termination does not shock the court’s sense of fairness *(see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County,*34 NY2d 222, 234 [1974]), given petitioner’s teaching deficiencies over the course of three years, the absence of any improvement despite assistance offered by respondent, and her refusal to acknowledge her shortcomings *(see Davis,*137 AD3d at 717).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Feinman and Kahn, JJ.