alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 34726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13984]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XB195]


Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) of the Mid-
Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 21, 2021, starting 
at 12:30 p.m. and continue through 12:30 p.m. on Friday, July 23, 2021. 
For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place over webinar using the Webex 
platform with a telephone-only connection option. Details on how to 
connect to the webinar by computer and by telephone will be available 
at: http://www.mafmc.org/ssc.
    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N 
State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331; 
www.mafmc.org.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive 
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 
526-5255.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this meeting is to make 
multi-year acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommendations for Golden 
Tilefish, Atlantic Mackerel, Summer Flounder, Scup, Black Sea Bass, and 
Bluefish based on the results of the recently completed management 
track stock assessment updates. The SSC will review the previously 
recommended 2022 ABC and recommend new 2023-24 ABC specifications for 
Golden Tilefish; recommend 2022-23 rebuilding ABC specifications for 
Atlantic Mackerel and Bluefish; and recommend new 2022-23 ABC 
specifications for Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass. The SSC 
Economic Work Group will update the full SSC on the latest developments 
and current status of Research Set-Aside economic case study. The SSC 
will also discuss potential topics to be covered during the joint 
Council-SSC meeting scheduled to take place as part of the August 2021 
Council meeting. In addition, the SSC may take up any other business as 
necessary. Meeting materials will be posted to www.mafmc.org.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should 
be directed to Kathy Collins at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office (302) 
526-5253 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: June 25, 2021.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-13984 Filed 6-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
#### BARNETT v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH AGENCY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

April 16, 1912.)

Municipal Corporations (§ 706*)—Use of Street—Negligence—Action-Evidence.

Evidence in an action to recover for the loss of plaintiffs horse by a collision with defendant’s electric beer truck, *held*not sufficient to sustain a verdict for plaintiff.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 1518; Dec. Dig. § 706 ;* Highways, Cent. Dig. §§ 471-474.]

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.

Action by George S. Barnett against the Anheuser-Busch Agency. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered in the Municipal Court of the City of New York after a trial by a judge without a jury, defendant appeals. Reversed, andi new trial ordered.

Argued March term 1912, before GUY, LEHMAN, and BIJUR, JJ.

Blumenstiel & Blumenstiel, of New York City (Edwin Blumenstiel, of counsel), for appellant.

Leon Eorst, of New York City, for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff’s story is that, while driving a truck eastward on Twenty-Eighth street, shortly after he emerged onto Eighth avenue, and when he was twelve or fifteen feet from the south-bound car track, he saw defendant’s electrically propelled beer truck, coming south on that track. The truck was then proceeding slowly, and was about 150 feet away. The driver of the beer truck thereupon put on great speed, and covered the 150 intervening feet while plaintiff’s horse was moving 12 or 15 feet, striking the horse in the head and leg, and injuring it so that it had to be shot. The story of this remarkable speed of the electric truck is well-nigh incredible in itself. But, in addition, there is the fact that plaintiff’s witness, who was standing some 40 or 50 feet from the point of the accident, overtook the truck within 150 feet and notified the driver of the accident.

*735I fail, in any event, to find any evidence of negligence on the part of defendant’s driver, and certainly none which was not fully shared by plaintiff’s driver. Defendant’s evidence, which is not shaken in any degree, is to the effect that the electric truck could not go more than *4y2*miles per hour, but might have gone a little faster at that point, because there is a slight downgrade. Defendant’s testimony indicates the only reasonable explanation of the accident, namely, that plaintiff’s horse continued to advance, the driver evidently expecting that the electric truck would pass ahead of it, but that the horse collided with the hind wheel of the electric truck.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-15-0000388 04-JUN-2015 10:53 AM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

STEFON THOMAS LANDING,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 917 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of May, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
**EXHIBIT
31.1**
 
 **Certification
Pursuant to Section 13a-14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of Charles M.
Skibo (HouseRaising Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer)**
 
 I,
Charles M. Skibo, certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 of
HouseRaising, Inc. (“registrant”);
 
 2. Based
on my knowledge, the 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 officers and I am 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 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 officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 
 a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information (all of which do not apply); 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 (all of which do
not apply).
  ****Date: March 30,
2005
    By:
    /s/ Charles M.
  SkiboName: Charles M. SkiboTitle:  Chairman of the
      Board a
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF****THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350, as created by Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Wimm-Bill-DannFoods OJSC (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i)                          the accompanyingAnnual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31,2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

(ii)                       the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date:June 26, 2008

 
|        |   | /s/  Tony D. Maher       |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |   | Tony  D. Maher           |
|   |   | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Nikolas Antonopoulos, President and Chief Executive Officer of Crum & Forster Holdings Corp.,certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Crum & Forster Holdings Corp.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.       Date:March 21, 2006 By: /s/ *Nikolas Antonopoulos*       Nikolas Antonopoulos      President and Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Stanley Moore, Appellant, v Andrea W. Evans, Respondent.

[944 NYS2d 92]—

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered August 2, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the petition seeking, among other things, to annul respondent’s implied denial of petitioner’s September 14, 2009 request to correct the consequential effects of a September 1983 parole revocation decision, and dismissed this proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s challenge is time-barred because it was not brought within four months of receiving notice in 1983 of the Parole Board’s determination to revoke his parole (CPLR 217 [1]; *Matter of Carter v State of N.Y., Exec. Dept., Div. of Parole,*95 NY2d 267, 270-272 [2000]). Even if, as petitioner asserts, the Division of Parole had a continuous ministerial duty to expunge his 1983 parole revocation, this proceeding would still be untimely as it was not brought within four months of the Division of Parole’s letter dated November 21, 2008 denying petitioner’s request to vacate the 1983 parole revocation determination (CPLR 217 [1]; *Matter of Bottom v Goord,*96 NY2d 870, 872 [2001]).

This proceeding is also barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, as petitioner has challenged the 1983 parole revocation in prior proceedings, including a CPLR article *58078 proceeding in 2003 at which the statute of limitations issue was fully litigated and decided against petitioner *(see Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v Lopez,*46 NY2d 481, 485 [1979]; *Matter of LaSonde v Seabrook,*89 AD3d 132, 140 [2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 911 [2012]; *Barcov Holding Corp. v Bexin Realty Corp.,*16 AD3d 282 [2005]).

In any event, petitioner’s due process claim lacks merit. Petitioner was given notice of the charges against him at the time of the parole violation proceeding; therefore, he had an opportunity to be heard and to show, if possible, that he did not violate the parole condition or that mitigating circumstances suggested that the violation did not warrant revocation *(see generally Morrissey v Brewer,*408 US *471,*488 [1972]). Concur— Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 27 Misc 3d 1230(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 50977(11).]
**Exhibit 32**

 

**Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

 

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Regal Entertainment Group, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), each hereby certifies that, to his/her knowledge on the date hereof:

 

(a) the Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2011, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
|   | /s/ AMY   E. MILES                     |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|   | Amy   E. Miles                              |
|   | *Chief Executive Officer*                   |
|   | March 28,   2012                       |
|   |                                        |
|   | /s/ DAVID   H. OWNBY    |
|   | David   H. Ownby                            |
|   | *Chief Financial Officer*                   |
|   | March 28,   2012                       |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

 

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Real Estate Associates Limited VI (the"Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), JohnMcGrath, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership,and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of thePartnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of his knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

This certification isfurnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
#### County of Chemung, Respondent, v Fenwal, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from that part of an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Crew, J.), *552entered June 13,1984 in Chemung County, as amended by order entered July 10, 1984, which granted plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant Fenwal, Inc., to answer certain interrogatories.

In an action to recover for property damages resulting from an explosion at a solid waste disposal facility operated by plaintiff, defendant Fenwal, Inc., contractually charged with the duty to inspect and service the explosion protective system installed at the waste facility, appeals from so much of an order as compels it to answer certain written interrogatories within 30 days of service upon it of the amended order.

The factual background of this case can be simply stated. Following inspection and service by Fenwal of the explosion protective system on December 14,1978, December 18,1978 and January 16, 1979, an explosion occurred at plaintiff’s solid waste disposal facility causing extensive property damage. On February 3, 1981, plaintiff commenced an action sounding in negligence, strict products liability and breach of warranty against Fenwal and other corporate entities. On April 21,1983, plaintiff served 15 written interrogatories upon Fenwal. Fenwal neither moved for a protective order (CPLR 3103) nor objected in writing (CPLR 3133). By notice of motion dated February 29, 1984, plaintiff moved for a conditional order of resolution against Fenwal (CPLR 3126 [1]). By order entered June 13, 1984, as amended by order entered July 10,1984, Special Term granted plaintiff’s motion and ordered Fenwal to answer all the propounded interrogatories within 30 days of service upon it of the amended order.

Since Fenwal has not sustained its burden of establishing that the information sought is immune from discovery under CPLR 3101, its unsworn assertions by counsel being inadequate for this purpose, the order as amended must be affirmed.

When interrogatories are served upon a party after commencement of an action (CPLR 3130), the party upon whom they are served must, within 10 days after service, move upon notice to strike out any interrogatory, stating the ground for objection (CPLR 3133 [a]). Here, Fenwal did not so move. In an action to recover property damages, when no claim of privilege or immunity is raised concerning information sought through interrogatories, failure to timely move to strike the interrogatories forecloses all inquiry into the propriety of the information sought *(Long Is. Region Natl. Assn. For Advancement of Colored People v Town of North Hempstead,*94 AD2d 789).

Order as amended modified, on the facts, with costs to plaintiff; defendant Fenwall, Inc., directed to fully answer interrogatory Nos. “1 — 15” inclusive within 20 days after service of a *553copy of the order to be entered upon this decision with notice of entry; and, as so modified, affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TARON SMALL,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 97 EAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of August, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 15

- 00728

- CR

Miguel Hugo BARRAZA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR4160

Honorable Lorina I. Rummel, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED February 1, 2017.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
#### Robert GENDLER; Yorkys Ramirez, Plaintiffs-counter-defendants-Appellants, v. ALL PRO VAN LINES, Defendant-counter-claimant.

No. 05-17196.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 26, 2008.*

Filed Jan. 8, 2009.

Law Offices, Edward W. Matchett, Bis-bee, AZ, for Plaintiffs-counter-defendants-Appellant.

Before: FARRIS, BEEZER, and HALL, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Gendler and Yorkys Ramirez appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of All Pro Van Lines. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson,*363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir.2004), and affirm.

The facts of the case are known to the parties and we do not repeat them here.

To the extent that Gendler and Ramirez sue for failure to deliver goods and intentional infliction of emotional distress as a result of failure to deliver goods, the Car-mack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706(a)(1), preempts their claims. *See White v. Mayflower Transit, LLC,*543 F.3d 581, 586 (9th Cir.2008). To the extent Gendler and Ramirez sue for fraud, the Carmack Amendment provides a complete defense to their claims. *See id.*at 584.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.