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

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5315 

To amend the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 

to require the head of an agency to be reconfirmed by the Senate 

unless the agency is found to be in compliance with the requirements 

of such Act, as reported by the Comptroller General. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2006 

Mr. CARDOZA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Financial Management Improvement 

Act of 1996 to require the head of an agency to be 

reconfirmed by the Senate unless the agency is found 

to be in compliance with the requirements of such Act, 

as reported by the Comptroller General. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Accountability in Gov5 ernment Act of 2006’’. 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5315 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR RECONFIRMATION OF AGENCY 

2 HEAD IF AGENCY IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE 

3 WITH FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT IM4 PROVEMENT ACT OF 1996. 

5 Section 803 of the Federal Financial Management 

6 Improvement Act of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 3512 note) is 

7 amended by adding at the end the following new sub8 section: 

9 ‘‘(d) RECONFIRMATION OF HEADS OF AGENCIES

10 FOUND NONCOMPLIANT.—In any case in which the report 

11 of the Comptroller General submitted by October 1 of a 

12 year under section 804(c), beginning with October 1, 

13 2008, states that an agency is not in compliance with the 

14 requirements of subsection (a), the head of the agency 

15 may not continue to serve as head of the agency unless, 

16 not later than April 1 of the following year, the person 

17 serving in that position is reappointed by the President 

18 with the advise and consent of the Senate.’’. 

Æ 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5379 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5379

To authorize the Secretary of the Army to acquire land for expansion of 
       Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, subject to certain conditions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 2006

Mrs. Musgrave introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of the Army to acquire land for expansion of 
       Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, subject to certain conditions.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE LAND FOR EXPANSION OF PINON CANYON 
              MANEUVER SITE.

    (a) Authority.--The Secretary of the Army may, subject to 
subsections (b) and (c), after consulting with the congressional 
defense committees, and using funds previously appropriated for such 
purpose, acquire for not more than fair market value any and all right, 
title, and interest in and to one or more parcels of real property 
located near Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (in this section referred to as 
the ``Site'') for the purpose of expanding the Site.
    (b) Limitation on Expansion.--The Secretary of the Army may not 
acquire real property under subsection (a) to expand the Site if such 
acquisition would require the condemnation of such property, the 
seizure by a Federal entity of any private property, or the exercise by 
a Federal or State governmental entity of eminent domain authority.
    (c) Study Required.--The Secretary of the Army may not acquire real 
property under subsection (a) until the Secretary has submitted to the 
congressional defense committees a study on--
            (1) the economic impact on local communities of such 
        acquisition;
            (2) the environmental impact of expanding the Site pursuant 
        to subsection (a); and
            (3) the costs associated with potential environmental 
        restoration, waste management, and other environmental 
        activities in connection with such acquisition and expansion.
    (d) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) The term ``congressional defense committees'' means the 
        Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Appropriations 
        of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services and the 
        Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
            (2) The term ``fair market value'' means, with respect to a 
        parcel of land, the value of such parcel as determined by an 
        appraisal performed by an independent, certified appraiser in 
        accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal 
        Practice.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO**

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

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

|                                   |                                                                                               |                        |
|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
| Date:                May 14, 2007 |                                                                                                    |                        |
|                                   |                                                                                                    | /s/              Jinyuan Li |
|                              | Jinyuan                Li                                                                          |
|                              | Chief                Executive Officer and President(Principal                  Executive Officer) |

|                                     |                                                                                        |                           |
|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| Date:                  May 14, 2007 |                                                                                             |                           |
|                                     |                                                                                             | /s/                Wenjun Jiao |
|                                | Wenjun                    Jiao                                                              |
|                                | Chief                    Financial Officer(Principal                    Accounting Officer) |

----
#### Vincenzo Pepe, Respondent, v Sheldon Tannenbaum et al., Appellants.

[719 NYS2d 886]

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated December 20, 1999, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and General Business Law § 771 to dismiss the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court dated April 7, 2000, which denied their motion for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated April 7, 2000, is dismissed as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated December 20, 1999, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The plaintiff, a licensed home improvement contractor, commenced this action to recover payment for renovation work he allegedly performed on the defendants’ residence based on an oral agreement and a written estimate. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that in the absence of a written agreement in compliance with General Business Law § 771, the plaintiff is precluded from any recovery.

Accepting the plaintiffs allegations as true, as we must on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) *(see, Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 87-88), we agree with the Supreme Court that the complaint stated a cause of action to recover for the work allegedly performed based on a theory of quantum meruit *(see, Frank v Feiss,*266 AD2d 825; *William Conover, Inc. v*
      *621
      *Waldorf,*251 AD2d 727; *Mindich Developers v Milstein,*227 AD2d 536). Further, the defendants failed to establish that a check they issued to the plaintiff constituted an accord and satisfaction barring this action *(see, Merrill Lynch Realty*/ *Carll Burr v Skinner,*63 NY2d 590, 596). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.
### Mar ch 6, 2014 

## Discussion **fo r Na**  **tional Aer**  **osols Associa**  **tion: EP** 

**A’ s SNAP Pr** **ogr am** 

# Open Dialogue **– Ques** **tions and Ans we**  **rs**

2

# Discussion

• Curr en t thinking on aer osols • Consumer Aer osols (non - medical & non - te chnical aer osols)

– Change s tat us fo r HF C - 134a, HFC - 227ea and HF C 125

– Re ta in HFC - 152a

# Con ta ct Informa tion

4 

### • Cindy Newberg – Chief

, Alt ernativ es and Emission Re duction Br anch 202 - 343 - 9729 newberg.cindy@epa. gov


### • Marga re t Sheppar d – SNAP t eam leader 202 - 343 - 9163 sheppar d.marga re t@epa. gov
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A1014. DARNELL POWELL v. KIMBERLY EDDINS.

Following the magistrate court’s decision that plaintiff Kimberly Eddins was

not entitled to relief on her complaint against defendant Darnell Powell and that

Powell was not entitled to relief on his counterclaim against Eddins, Eddins appealed

to state court. The state court entered judgment in favor of Eddins, and Powell filed

a motion to set aside the judgment under OCGA § 9-11-60 (d), which the state court

denied. Powell then filed this direct appeal. We lack jurisdiction for two reasons. 

First, an appeal from a state court order disposing of a de novo appeal from a

magistrate court decision must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary

review. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (11); Strachan v. Meritor Mtg. Corp. East, 216 Ga.

App. 82 (453 SE2d 119) (1995). Second, an appeal from an order denying a motion

to set aside under OCGA § 9-11-60 (d) also must be taken by filing an application for

discretionary review. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (8); Jim Ellis Atlanta v. Adamson, 283

Ga. App. 116, 116-17 (640 SE2d 688) (2006). Powell’s failure to file a discretionary

application deprives this Court of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby

DISMISSED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

February 23, 2017

02/23/2017
**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 the Quarterly Report of AFV Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Suzanne Herring, 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:

 

|   | (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/ Suzanne Herring                           			

Suzanne Herring |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|

|   | November 20, 2006 |
|--------|-------------------|
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133295 Michael F. Cavanagh 

& (19) Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 133295 

 COA: 274849 

Genesee CC: 06-018000-FC 

DENNIS WAYNE VAN CLEVE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of July 30, 2007, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the 

application for leave to appeal the January 18, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals. On 

order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is 

again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, 

we REMAND this case to the Genesee Circuit Court for resentencing. Because the 

penetrations in this case did not “arise out of” the sentencing offense, OV 11 should not 

have been scored at 50 points. People v Johnson, 474 Mich 96 (2006). 

l0917 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 24, 2007 

 Clerk
exhibit_10-4.htm








EXHIBIT 10.4


 


 


CONFIRMATION OF CLOSE OF SHARE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT







On February 18, 2011, Terra Mining Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Province of British Columbia (the “Seller”), and WestMountain Index Advisor, Inc., a corporation existing under laws of the State of Colorado (the “Buyer”), entered into a Share Exchange Agreement (the “Agreement”) relating to the exchange of the Seller’s common stock (“Seller Shares”) for shares (the “Buyer Shares”) of the Buyer.


 


In this Agreement, the Seller desires to exchange the Seller Shares with the Buyer for their Buyer Shares in accordance with the Agreement.


 


The Seller confirms representations and warranties contained in this Agreement are true and correct in all material respects as of the Closing Date, and Seller shall have complied in all material respects with all of its covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement to be performed and complied with by it on or before the Closing Date.


 


The Buyer confirms representations and warranties contained in this Agreement are true and correct in all material respects as of the Closing Date, and Buyer shall have complied in all material respects with all of its covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement to be performed and complied with by it on or before the Closing Date.


 


Seller and Buyer confirm the closing of this transaction occurred as of February 28, 2011.


 


Seller:







Terra Mining Corporation, Inc.







By:


            /s/ Gregory Schifrin


Name: Gregory Schifrin


Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer












Buyer:







WestMountain Index Advisor, Inc.







/s/ Brian Klemsz


Name:  Brian Klemsz


Title:    President
Exhibit
32.2





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





I,
Jeffrey J. Fox, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this report on Form
10-K/A of Willamette Valley Vineyards, Inc. fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in this report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Willamette Valley Vineyards, Inc.


Date:
      January 25, 2010By:
                /s/
      Jeffrey J. FoxName:
                Jeffrey
      J. FoxTitle:
                Chief
      Financial Officer
  15
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5336 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5336

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to suspend the Medicare 
         prescription drug late enrollment penalty during 2006.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2006

    Mr. Price of Georgia (for himself and Mr. Kline) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
  Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to suspend the Medicare 
         prescription drug late enrollment penalty during 2006.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``2006 Penalty-Free Part D Act''.

SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG LATE ENROLLMENT 
              PENALTY DURING 2006.

    (a) In General.--Section 1860D-13(b)(3)(B) of the Social Security 
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-113(b)(3)(B)) is amended by inserting ``(after 
December 2006)'' after ``any month''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as if included in the enactment of the Medicare 
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public 
Law 108-173).
                                 <all>
```
STATE of North Carolina v. John Edward BUTLER

No. 629P01-8

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 20, 2019

John Edward Butler, for Butler, John Edward.

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, L. Johnson Britt, III, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 16th of May 2019 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Robeson County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of May 2019."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of May 2019 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of May 2019."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of May 2019 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of May 2019."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 16th of May 2019 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Robeson County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of May 2019."

Davis, J. recused
#### Exchange National Bank of Tampa, as Administrator of the Estate of Adrian C. Honore, Deceased, *Appellant,*v. the Clark-Ray-Johnson Company, et al., *Appellees.*

Division B.

Opinion Filed April 16, 1928.

*Kwight, Thompson & Turner*and *James F. Glen,*Attorneys for Appellant;

*Hampton & Greene,*Attorneys for Appellees.

Bueord, J.

In this case bill was .filed to foreclose mortgage. The appellant filed answer to the bill. There was a motion to strike the answer which .was considered by the court below as exceptions to the answer and may be so considered here. On hearing the exceptions were sustained and the defendant given time to file further answer or to plead, from which order this appeal was taken. Sec. 3118, Rev. Gen. Statutes of Fla. is as follows :

“The defendant in his answer shall in short and simple *735terms set out his defense to each claim asserted by the'bill, omitting any mere statement of evidence and avoiding any general denial of the averments of the bill, but specifically admitting or denying or explaining the facts upon which the plaintiff relies, unless the defendant is without knowledge, in which case he shall so state, such statement operating as a denial.”

The allegation contained in the answer which appellant contends complies with that part of the above quoted section, to wit: “unless defendant is without knowledge, in which case he shall so state, such statement operating as a denial” is as follows: “This defendant says that it is a stranger to all the transactions set forth in said bill of complaint and neither admits nor denies the averments in said bill of complaint set forth, but calls upon the complainant for strict proof of said allegations and each of them. ’ ’

We must hold that this is not equivalent to an allegation that “The defendant is without knowledge” and this allegation does not meet the requirements of the statute. The remainder of the answer alleges no state of facts which would constitute a defense to the claim or claims set up in the bill of complaint and neither specifically admitted or denied or explained any of the facts upon which the complainant relied for the relief prayed.

The order of the chancellor sustaining the exceptions to the answer should be affirmed and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 2100]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-533]



[[Page 2100]]

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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-09-001]


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Agency Holding the Meeting: United States International Trade 
Commission.

Time and Date: January 21, 2009 at 2 p.m.

Place: Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

Status: Open to the public.

Matters to be Considered:
    1. Agenda for future meetings: None.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Inv. No. 731-TA-1020 (Review) (Barium Carbonate from China)--
briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit 
its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of 
Commerce on or before January 30, 2009.)
    5. Outstanding Action Jackets: None.
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission:

    Issued: January 8, 2009.
William R. Bishop,
Hearings and Meetings Coordinator.
[FR Doc. E9-533 Filed 1-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P