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

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25858]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2013-07539]

[[Page 25858]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0954; FRL-9796-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Pennsylvania; Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Pennsylvania 
Counties in the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE 1997 Fine Particulate 
Matter Nonattainment Area

Correction

    In rule document 2013-7539 beginning on page 19991 in the issue of 
Wednesday, April 3, 2013, make the following correction:

Sec.  52.2020  [Corrected]

    On page 19993, in Sec.  52.2020(e)(1), in the table, under the 
``Additional explanation'' heading, ``April 13, 2013'' should read 
``April 3, 2013''.
[FR Doc. C1-2013-07539 Filed 5-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
WINSTON AFFORDABLE HOUSING, L.L.C. v. ROBERTS

267P19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 8, 2019

Liza A. Baron, Attorney at Law, for Roberts, D.

Valene K. Franco, Attorney at Law, for Roberts, Deborah.

Andrew Cogdell, Attorney at Law, Morganton, for Roberts, Deborah.

Celia Pistolis, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Roberts, Deborah.

Elliot A. Fus, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Winston Affordable Housing, L.L.C. d/b/a Winston Summit Apartments.

Chad A. Archer, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Winston Affordable Housing, L.L.C. d/b/a Winston Summit Apartments.

***Amended***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of July 2019 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of July 2019."

Davis, J., Recused
STATE v. Dale Erwin FOAT

225P19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of North Carolina.

Dale Erwin Foat, For Foat, Dale Erwin.

Matthew Delbridge, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of June 2019 by Defendant for Relief Upon Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131032 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices v SC: 131032 

 COA: 258629 
 Wayne CC: 04-005854-01

MASON CHRISTMAS, a/k/a KENNETH 

TERRELL WILLIAMS, a/k/a KENNETH 

TERRELL BEARD, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 2, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0724 

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. 

July 31, 2006 

 Clerk
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3302-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-3302-EM), dated January 28, 2009, and related determinations.

# Effective Date: 

February 5, 2009.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this emergency is closed effective February 5, 2009.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

Nancy Ward,

Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. E9-5232 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
St at e of Ne w York Supre me Court , Appe llat e D i vi s i on T h i rd J udi cial D e

part me n t Decided and Entered: December 15, 2016 522893

________________________________ In the Matter of the Claim of ANGELIST M. ALSBROOKS, Appellant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: October 25, 2016 Before: Peters, P.J., Garry, Egan Jr., Lynch and Rose, JJ.

__________ Angelist M. Alsbrooks, Saint Albans, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Mary Hughes of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 14, 2015, which ruled, among other things, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed. Decisions affirmed. No opinion. Peters, P.J., Garry, Egan Jr., Lynch and Rose, JJ., concur.-2- 522893

ORDERED that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
```
**Exhibit 32

                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

In  connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Vibrant  Health  International,  a
Nevada  corporation (the "Company"),  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March
31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,
Thomas H. McAdam,  Chief Executive  Officer and Chief  Financial  Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant  toss.906  of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002  (18
U.S.C.ss.1350), that to my knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

                                                /s/Thomas McAdam
                                                ------------------------
                                                Thomas H. McAdam
                                                Chief Executive Officer and
                                                Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2004
```
No. 09-945.

#### Louisiana Safety Association of Timbermen - Self Insurers Fund, Petitioner v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et al.

560 U.S. 902, 130 S. Ct. 3311,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1180,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3980.

May 17, 2010.

The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
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 Annual Report of Radient Pharmaceuticals Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas C. MacClellan, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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 for the periods presented.




Date: May 24, 2011

/s/ Douglas C. MacLellanDouglas C. MacLellanChief Executive Officer, President


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




This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”).  Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Annual Report of Wells
Real Estate Fund III, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of
the corporate general partner of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that,
to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    LEO F. WELLS, III                                  
|Leo F. Wells, III Chief Executive Officer March 30, 2005  
|/s/    DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS                                
|Douglas P. Williams Chief Financial Officer
March 30, 2005
EXHIBIT
32.1














Certification
of Chief Executive Officer of ULURU Inc.


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 ULURU Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and to which this Certification is an exhibit (the “Report”), the
undersigned officer of ULURU Inc. does hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18
U.S.C. 1350), that to my knowledge:





(1.)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.








Date: May 15, 2009
            
            /s/
      Renaat Van den HooffRenaat
      Van den HooffPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)
No. 09-9643.

#### Otha James, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

560 U.S. 911, 130 S. Ct. 3289,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1195,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3958.

May 17, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

FEB 16 2000

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JERRY KAME, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 99-2275

v. (D.C. No. CIV-99-778-JP)

ROBERT PERRY, Secretary of

Corrections, New Mexico Department

of Corrections; JOHN SHANKS,

Director of Adult Prisons, New

Mexico Department of Corrections;

JEFF SERNA, Interstate Compact

Administrator, New Mexico

Department of Corrections; and TIM

LEMASTER, Warden, New Mexico

State Penitentiary, 

(D. New Mex.)

Defendants - Appellees.

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

After examining Appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
1We are dismissing as frivolous the appeal of an action the district court

dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). For purposes of § 1915(g), both

dismissals count as strikes against plaintiff . See Jennings v. Natrona County

Detention Ctr. , 175 F.3d 775, 780 (10th Cir. 1999) .

-2-

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

This is a pro se civil rights appeal. Plaintiff was transferred from a New

Mexico prison facility to one in Rhode Island. His complaint alleged a variety of

abuses committed or encouraged by Rhode Island prison officials. These claims

all relate to prison conditions in Rhode Island. He seeks damages and injunctive

relief from the defendants in this action, all of whom are New Mexico prison

officials. His theory is that they are liable because they transferred him to Rhode

Island and refused to return him to New Mexico or remediate his problems after

being notified of their existence.

The trial court dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to

state a claim against the New Mexico defendants. We have reviewed the

complaint, its attachments, the trial court’s sua sponte order of dismissal, and the

brief on appeal. We conclude that the trial court’s order correctly characterized

the plaintiff’s allegations and correctly dismissed plaintiff’s complaint. We

therefore affirm for the reasons given by the trial court and dismiss plaintiff’s

appeal as frivolous.1 
-3-

AFFIRMED and DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

United States Circuit Judge
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of Tornado Gold
International Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March
31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Earl W. Abbott, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and I, George Drazenovic, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) 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.

|May 16, 2007 | By: | /s/
      Earl Abbott                      
|------------ | --- | -------------------------------------------
|             |     |                                            
|             |     | Earl W. Abbott                             
|             |     | President and Chief
      Executive Officer
|             |     | (Principal Executive
      Officer)        

|May 16, 2007 | By: | /s/ George Drazenovic              
|------------ | --- | -----------------------------------
|             |     |                                    
|             |     | George Drazenovic                  
|             |     | Chief Financial
      Officer      
|             |     | (Principal Financial
      Officer)

---
****
 **EXHIBIT
32.2**
 
 Written
Statement of Principal Executive Officer Furnished Pursuant to
 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350,
 as
Adopted by
 Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of HouseRaising, Inc. (the
"Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert V. McLemore,
President and Founder, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,
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)
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition as of March 31, 2005 and results of operations for the
quarter ended March 31, 2005 of the Company and its subsidiaries.
 
 
 /s/
Robert V. McLemore
 ------------------------
 Robert V.
McLemore
 President
and Founder (Principal Executive Officer)
 
 May 16,
2005
 
 This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5117

AN ACT

To exempt persons with disabilities from the prohibition 

against providing section 8 rental assistance to college 

students.

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

•HR 5117 EH 

1 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 

2 FROM SECTION 8 RENTAL ASSISTANCE PRO3 HIBITION. 

4 Subsection (a) of section 327 of Public Law 109–115 

5 (119 Stat. 2466) is amended—

6 (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

7 end; 

8 (2) by redesignating paragraph (6) as para9 graph (7); and 

10 (3) by inserting after paragraph (5) the fol11 lowing new paragraph: 

12 ‘‘(6) is not a person with disabilities, as such 

13 term is defined in section 3(b)(3)(E) of the United 

14 States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 

15 1437a(b)(3)(E)) and was not receiving assistance 

16 under such section 8 as of November 30, 2005; 

17 and’’.

Passed the House of Representatives June 13, 2006. 

Attest:

Clerk. 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5117

AN ACT

To exempt persons with disabilities from the prohiance to college students. bition against providing section 8 rental assist-
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs May 7, 2013

SANDRA HENDRICKS FRANKLIN v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Tipton County

No. 5975 Joseph H. Walker, Judge

No. W2012-01445-CCA-R3-PC - Filed September 26, 2013

NORMA MCGEE OGLE, J., dissenting.

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s upholding the trial court’s summary

dismissal of the petitioner’s pro se post-conviction petition. I acknowledge that the petition

was filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations for filing a post-conviction petition. See

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102(a). However, our supreme court has held that due process

may require the statute of limitations to be tolled in cases where its strict application would

deny the petitioner “‘a reasonable opportunity to assert a claim in a meaningful time and

manner.’” Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464, 468 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting Seals v. State, 23

S.W.3d 272, 279 (Tenn. 2000)). Notably, “a post-conviction petitioner should not be denied

a reasonable opportunity to raise a claim due to another’s misconduct.” Sample v. State, 82

S.W.3d 267, 277 (Tenn. 2002); see also Williams, 44 S.W.3d at 468.

The majority concludes that “other than a bare allegation that Petitioner did not know

of the November 10, 2010 date of the supreme court’s action, Petitioner fails to allege any

circumstances that prevented her from filing the petition in a timely fashion or any situation

that would require tolling of the statute of limitations.” The petitioner alleged in her petition

that she did not “receive[] any notification concerning the Supreme Court’s ruling” and that

she “wait[ed] for correspondence from [c]ounsel, but never received a response.” She filed

her petition approximately six months after the statute of limitations expired. Previously, this

court has concluded that a petitioner who alleged that he was afforded no notice of the denial

of his application for permission to appeal to the supreme court was entitled to an evidentiary

hearing “‘to determine (1) whether due process tolled the statute of limitations so as to give

the [petitioner] a reasonable opportunity after the expiration of the limitations period to

present his claim in a meaningful time and manner; and (2) if so, whether the [petitioner’s]

filing of the post-conviction petition . . . was within the reasonable opportunity afforded by

the due process tolling.’” Michael Braxton v. State, No. M2004-00791-CCA-R3-PC, 2005
WL 1303121, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, May 31, 2005) (quoting Williams, 44

S.W.3d at 471). In my view, the instant case warrants a hearing to determine if due process

concerns require the tolling of the statute of limitations. Therefore, I would reverse the postconviction court’s decision and remand for a hearing.

___________________________________

NORMA MCGEE OGLE, JUDGE

-2-