alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 11 (Friday, January 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 2994]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-765]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Kansas Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a public briefing 
meeting of the Kansas Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene 
on Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 9 a.m. and adjourn at approximately 4 
p.m. at the Dillon House located on the grounds of the Kansas State 
Capitol, 404 Southwest North 9th Street, Topeka, KS 66612. The purpose 
of the meeting is to conduct a public briefing meeting to receive 
information on the ``Civil Rights Implications of Kansas Caucus Process 
Related Voting Rights Issues.'' Information will also be collected on 
``Enforcement of Employment Civil Rights Laws in Kansas.''
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The 
comments must be received in the regional office by February 16, 2009. 
The address is U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 400 State Avenue, Suite 
908, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Persons wishing to e-mail their 
comments, or to present their comments verbally at the meeting, or who 
desire additional information should contact Farella E. Robinson, 
Regional Director, Central Regional Office, at (913) 551-1400 or by e-
mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#afc9ddc0cdc6c1dcc0c1efdadcccccdd81c8c0d9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a0c6d2cfc2c9ced3cfcee0d5d3c3c3d28ec7cfd6">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional 
Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the 
meeting.
    Records generated by this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Central Regional Office, as they become available, both before 
and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory 
committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Central Regional Office at the above 
e-mail or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, January 12, 2009.
Christopher Byrnes,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
 [FR Doc. E9-765 Filed 1-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Yaakov VANN, Appellant, v. ICE LEGAL, P.A., and Thomas E. Ice, Appellees.

No. 4D16-2348

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 16, 2017]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Medical Action Industries Inc. (the
Company) for the quarter ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Paul D. Meringolo, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board
and President of the Company, certifies, to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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/ Paul D. Meringolo                                       
|Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board and President

Date: February 7, 2007
Corey EDWARDS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1624

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE EX REL. John E. TICKLES v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2017-KH-2121

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 9, 2018

Writ not considered. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances"

*457that would justify bypassing that level of review.
**Exhibit 31.2**
I, Ronald C. Lundy, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Veramark Technologies, Inc. 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this quarterly report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterlyreport based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably like to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of the internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting,which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.        Date: May 13, 2004 By:  /s/Ronald C. Lundy   Ronald C. Lundy   Treasurer and Chief Accounting Officer  
23
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6741

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. STEVEN GREGORY RICHARDSON, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:05-cr-00298-F-1)

Submitted: September 4, 2009 Decided: October 1, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Gregory Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Steven Gregory Richardson appeals the district court’s

order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Richardson’s notice of appeal was untimely filed. Although the document Richardson captioned as a “motion of Appeal” was untimely, he earlier filed a “request for certificate of appealability” within the ten-day appeal period. Because we construe Richardson’s “request” to be a timely notice of appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 3, we deny the Government’s motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.

Richardson , No. 5:05-cr-00298-F-1 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 26, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

 37

 38

 39

 40

 41

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

08/01

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.77 N 77.11 W Meters AGL
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1013 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to close or realign the Marine Corps 

Recruit Depot located at Parris Island, South Carolina. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 28, 2023 

Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Armed Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to close or realign 

the Marine Corps Recruit Depot located at Parris Island, 

South Carolina. 

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 ‘‘Parris Island Protec5 tion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) The Marine Corps Recruit Depot located at 

9 Parris Island, South Carolina (in this section reVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:58 Apr 07, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1013.IS S1013

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1013 IS

1 ferred to as ‘‘Parris Island’’), has served the United 

2 States as a home to the Marine Corps since 1891. 

3 (2) Parris Island was the first facility to inte4 grate women in boot camp training for the Marine 

5 Corps in the United States. 

6 (3) Female recruits have trained at Parris Is7 land since 1949. 

8 (4) The first integrated company of male and 

9 female recruits graduated from Parris Island in 

10 2019. 

11 (5) Parris Island has cultivated a legacy of ex12 cellence and faithful service to the United States. 

13 (6) Parris Island is and shall remain the phys14 ical home of the United States Marine Corps East15 ern Recruiting Region. 

16 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF CLOSING OR REALIGNMENT OF 

17 MARINE CORPS RECRUIT DEPOT LOCATED 

18 AT PARRIS ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA. 

19 No Federal funds may be used to close or realign Ma20 rine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, South Carolina, 

21 or to conduct any planning or other activity related to 

22 such closure or realignment. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Demarcus JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4536

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 13, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
June 3, 2015 

Mr. Michael Anderson 

506 2nd Avenue South 

Great Falls, MT 59405 

Dear Mr. Anderson: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your May 5, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket 

(No. FAA-2015-1436), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
EXHIBIT
31.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(a)


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Gary
A. Weber, certify that:





1.           I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Synthetech,
Inc.;





2.           Based
on my knowledge, this 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 report;





3.           Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this 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 report;





4.           The
registrant's other certifying officer 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 we 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 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
report based on such evaluation; and





c)           Disclosed
in this 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; and





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





a)           All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses 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 controls over financial
reporting.







Date:
      February 12, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Gary
      A. WeberTitle:
              Vice
      President Finance &Chief
      Financial Officer
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 Commerce

###### International Trade Administration

Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being manufactured in the United States.

Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and be postmarked on or before April 27, 2009. Address written comments to Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m.at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Room 3720.

*Docket Number: 09-007.*                     Applicant: University of Utah, Consortium for Astro-Particle Research, 215 South State Street, Suite 200, Salt Lake City, UT 84111. Instrument: Electron Light Source (ELS) accelerator. Manufacturer: University of Tokyo, Japan. Intended Use: The instrument will be used as a component of a large ground Telescope Array, which will allow the scientists to calibrate the telescopes by generating a particle beam that accurately simulates a cosmic ray shower. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: No instruments of the same general category as the foreign instrument begin manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: March 10, 2009.                

Dated: March 31, 2009.

Christopher Cassel,

Acting Director, IA Subsidies Enforcement Office.

[FR Doc. E9-7689 Filed 4-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
**Exhibit32.01**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the KMG America Corporation Annual Report on Form 10-K for the periodended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

(1)                                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of KMG America Corporation.

 
| /s/ Kenneth U. Kuk                                 | Date: March 31,  2005 |
|----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|
| Kenneth U. Kuk                                     |
| Chairman, President & Chief Executive  Officer |
| (Principal Executive Officer)                      |

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to KMG America Corporation and will be retained by KMG AmericaCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 23, 2009 

l0615 

Order 

 

June 23, 2009 

138527 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138527 

 COA: 289418 

Genesee CC: 07-021416-FC 

KORY JAMES GROSS, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 13, 2009 

order 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.
H. Res. 593 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 17, 2023. 

Resolved, That the Speaker, in concurrence with the Minority Leader, is authorized to direct the Chief Administrative Officer to record proceedings during a joint meeting of 

Congress on July 19, 2023, to provide a virtual reality experience for educational use by the public. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
S.N.L., the Mother, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN, etc., et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D16-2642

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

FEBRUARY 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.