alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2010083EN.01002301.xml

| 30.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 83/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 83/23

---

COUNCIL DECISION 2010/186/CFSP

of 29 March 2010

amending Common Position 2009/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 27 October 2009, the Council adopted Common Position 2009/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 27 October 2009, the Council adopted Common Position 2009/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea (1).

| (2) | On 22 December 2009, the Council adopted Decision 2009/1003/CFSP amending Common Position 2009/788/CFSP and including additional restrictive measures (2). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 22 December 2009, the Council adopted Decision 2009/1003/CFSP amending Common Position 2009/788/CFSP and including additional restrictive measures (2).

| (3) | The Council considers that there are no longer grounds for keeping certain persons on the list of persons, entities and bodies to which restrictive measures provided for in Common Position 2009/788/CFSP apply. The list set out in the Annex to Common Position 2009/788/CFSP should be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Council considers that there are no longer grounds for keeping certain persons on the list of persons, entities and bodies to which restrictive measures provided for in Common Position 2009/788/CFSP apply. The list set out in the Annex to Common Position 2009/788/CFSP should be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The persons mentioned in the Annex to this Decision shall be removed from the list set out in the Annex to Common Position 2009/788/CFSP.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussells, 29 March 2010.

For the Council

The President

E. ESPINOSA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 281, 28.10.2009, p. 7.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 346, 23.12.2009, p. 51.

2

---

ANNEX

List of persons referred to in Article 1

| no2 | Major-General Mamadouba (alias Mamadou) Toto CAMARA |
| --- | --- |

no2

Major-General Mamadouba (alias Mamadou) Toto CAMARA

| no3 | General Sékouba KONATÉ |
| --- | --- |

no3

General Sékouba KONATÉ

| no16 | Commandant Kelitigui FARO |
| --- | --- |

no16

Commandant Kelitigui FARO

| no43 | Mr Kabinet (alias Kabiné) KOMARA |
| --- | --- |

no43

Mr Kabinet (alias Kabiné) KOMARA

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER I certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB of The viaLink Company as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periods 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 operation and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The Companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Company and have:  (a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the Company is made known to us by
others, particularly during the periods in which this report is being
prepared;  (b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
report (the Evaluation Date); and  (c)
    
    presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;  5.
    
    The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee
of our board of directors:  (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect our ability to record, process,
summarize, and report financial data and have identified for the
Companys auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; 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; and  6.
    
    The Companys other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. Date: April 29, 2004By:
    /s/ ROBERT I. NOERobert I. NoeChief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1763 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1763

  To provide for the minimum size of crews of freight trains, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 13, 2015

 Mr. Young of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for the minimum size of crews of freight trains, and for 
                            other purposes.

    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 ``Safe Freight Act''.

SEC. 2. FREIGHT TRAIN CREW SIZE.

    (a) Amendment.--Subchapter II of chapter 201 of title 49, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 20168. Freight train crew size
    ``Effective 30 days after the date of enactment of the Safe Freight 
Act, no freight train or light engine used in connection with the 
movement of freight may be operated unless it has a crew consisting of 
at least 2 individuals, one of whom is certified under regulations 
promulgated by the Federal Railroad Administration as a locomotive 
engineer pursuant to section 20135, and the other of whom is certified 
under regulations promulgated by the Federal Railroad Administration as 
a conductor pursuant to section 20163.''.
    (b) Table of Sections Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
201 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
the following new item:

``20168. Freight train crew size.''.
                                 <all>
```
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTHA MAGDALENA MIRANDA

MENDEZ; VERONICA ATHALIA

VAZQUEZ MIRANDA,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70194

Agency Nos. A096-063-264

 A096-063-265

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 29, 2010** 

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Martha Magdalena Miranda Mendez and Veronica Athalia Vazquez

Miranda, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s

FILED

JUL 16 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70194

decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings, Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2000), and

we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Miranda

Mendez did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement where her

testimony and application indicated that she departed the United States for Mexico

in October 1994 and that she remained there for a period greater than 90 days. See

8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2) (departure in excess of 90 days breaks continuous physical

presence). 

The agency did not err in denying cancellation relief to Vazquez Miranda

where she did not demonstrate that she had a qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229b(b)(1).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
SOUTH CHANNEL CONEJOS RIVER NEAR LA SAUSESLatitude: 37.294Longitude: -105.752Elevation: 7503

SOUTH CHANNEL CONEJOS RIVER NEAR LA SAUSES

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ute Creek Site Page...



Ute Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Grayback Site Page...



Grayback

Courtesy NRCS - Go to San Antonio Sink Site Page...



San Antonio Sink

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wager Gulch Site Page...



Wager Gulch

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Beartown Site Page...



Beartown

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cumbres Trestle Site Page...



Cumbres Trestle

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lily Pond Site Page...



Lily Pond

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Middle Creek Site Page...



Middle Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Trinchera Site Page...



Trinchera

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper Rio Grande Site Page...



Upper Rio Grande

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper San Juan Site Page...



Upper San Juan

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wolf Creek Summit Site Page...



Wolf Creek Summit
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Gage Height                    
csv

      Total Release                    
csv

      Flow                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Gage Height                    
json

      Total Release                    
json

      Flow                    
json
REDLANDS CANAL NEAR GRAND JUNCTIONLatitude: 39.029Longitude: -108.563Elevation: 4566

REDLANDS CANAL NEAR GRAND JUNCTION

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cochetopa Pass Site Page...



Cochetopa Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Sargents Mesa Site Page...



Sargents Mesa

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper Taylor Site Page...



Upper Taylor

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wager Gulch Site Page...



Wager Gulch

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Butte Site Page...



Butte

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Columbine Pass Site Page...



Columbine Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Idarado Site Page...



Idarado

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Mc Clure Pass Site Page...



Mc Clure Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Mesa Lakes Site Page...



Mesa Lakes

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Overland Res. Site Page...



Overland Res.

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Park Cone Site Page...



Park Cone

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Park Reservoir Site Page...



Park Reservoir

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Porphyry Creek Site Page...



Porphyry Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Red Mountain Pass Site Page...



Red Mountain Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Schofield Pass Site Page...



Schofield Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Slumgullion Site Page...



Slumgullion
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Capital Title Group, Inc., (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Mark C. Walker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that;



| | (3) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (4) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Mark C. Walker     
|    |  | Mark C. Walker         
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
|    |  | March 3, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 169 (Friday, September 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 49524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19164]


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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, September 1, 2021; 10 a.m.

PLACE: This meeting will be conducted by remote means.

STATUS: Commission Meeting--Closed to the Public.

MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: Briefing Matter.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Alberta E. Mills, Secretary, 
Division of the Secretariat, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
MD 20814, (301) 504-7479 (Office) or 240-863-8938 (cell).

    Dated: August 31, 2021.
Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-19164 Filed 9-1-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
#### Coe *et al.,*Appellants, v. Coe, Respondent.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.*

May 2, 1890.)

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
Exhibit 32.1 - Certification of Principal Executive Officer



CERTIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH

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 Internet America, Inc. (the Company) for the six
months ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William E. Ladin, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to 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) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ William E. Ladin, Jr.William E. (Billy) Ladin, Jr.Chief Executive OfficerDate: February 14, 2006
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Helen Werner, Deceased. James Conniff, Respondent; Edward Dudek, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 906]

Appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Erie County (Barbara Howe, S.), entered July 6, 2011. The order granted the motion of petitioner for summary judgment, dismissed the objections to probate and directed that the last will and testament of decedent, dated July 2, 2009, be admitted to probate.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision by the Surrogate. Present — Centra, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Carni and Sconiers, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 52522(U).]
#### RAVEN v. SMITH.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

May 14, 1894.)

Appeal—Admission of Evidence—Harmless Error.

Error in admitting incompetent evidence is cured where competent evidence of the same facts is afterwards given.

*910Appeal from circuit court, Westchester county.

Action by John Raven against William R. Smith for services performed under a contract. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

For former report, see 24 N. Y. Supp. 600.

Argued before BROWN, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.

J. K. Bowen, for appellant.

Frederick W. Clark, for respondent.

PRATT, J.

The plaintiff testified under exception that his men reported to him that they had been stopped from work, having been discharged by defendant. That did not injure defendant, for the fact of being stopped was testified to by another witness, and was not contradicted by defendant, who went upon the witness stand at a later stage of the trial. It is also objected that plaintiff was allowed to put in evidence a copy of a notice served by him on defendant, without having previously given notice for the production of the original. Such notice was given at the trial after defendant had failed to produce the original. No suggestion was made that defendant was unable to produce the original, or that he desired to do so. Nor did he, when upon the witness stand, deny receiving the notice. It is plain that defendant was not injured by receiving the copy in evidence. It appears that at the time the verbal contract was made a Mr. Fairchild was present, who made minutes of the conversation. Neither party asked him to produce his minutes, although he was examined as a witness. Had they been produced, it may well be that we should be better satisfied with the proof. But the parties elected to go to the jury upon their own testimony, and the verdict based upon it cannot be set aside as contrary to the evidence. So as to the measure of damages. Two witnesses testified the work could be done at a cost that would allow plaintiff a profit of five cents a cubic yard. Three testified that it would cost much more than the agreed price. As it is not disputed that plaintiff wished to proceed" at the contract price, and was not called upon to do so, the jury may well have believed the plaintiff’s witnesses. We cannot say the verdict was wrong. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

RUSSELL D. FRANKLIN, ) DOC #517857, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. 2D17-4576 STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed September 28, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Ronald Ficarrotta, Judge. Russell Dale Franklin, pro se. Pamela J. Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Johnny T. Salgado, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
MORRIS, SLEET, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 10, 2016

NO. 03-15-00410-CR

Edgar Sangillo, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 299TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PURYEAR AND PEMBERTON

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment revoking community supervision entered by the trial 

court. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was 

no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s

judgment revoking community supervision. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay 

costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 10, 2016

NO. 03-15-00411-CR

Edgar Sangillo, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 299TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PURYEAR AND PEMBERTON

MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment revoking community supervision entered by the trial court.

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no error in 

the court’s judgment requiring reversal. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. 

However, there was error in the judgment that requires correction. Therefore, the Court modifies

the trial court’s judgment to delete the language stating that appellant “FAILED TO 

COMPLETE 250 HOURS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE RESTITUTION,” and to reflect that 

Sangillo was convicted under subsection 550.021(c)(2) of the Transportation Code. The 

judgment, as modified, is affirmed. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no 

adjudication of costs is made.
(June 7, 2012)

#### B.N. Realty Associates, Appellant-Respondent, v Ben Lichtenstein, Respondent-Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[949 NYS2d 1]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered March 8, 2011, to the extent appealed from, after a nonjury trial, dismissing plaintiff landlord’s complaint against defendant-respondent tenant (defendant) with prejudice, and dismissing defendant’s counterclaims, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, the complaint and the counterclaims reinstated, except for the counterclaims for sanctions and attorneys’ fees, and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The IAS court properly denied plaintiff’s motion in limine. On a prior appeal (21 AD3d 793 [2005]), this Court affirmed the denial without prejudice of that branch of plaintiffs motion for summary judgment awarding plaintiff back rent in the amount of $42,544.32. Accordingly, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, this Court’s decision did not mandate the preclusion at trial of evidence that contradicts plaintiffs claim to back rent.

The IAS court correctly found that plaintiff did not qualify for the exception to the best evidence rule that applies to lost or destroyed documents, given plaintiff’s failure to provide any excuse for nonproduction of the lease at issue *(Schozer v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.,*84 NY2d 639, 644 [1994]). However, given that defendant based his counterclaim for attorneys’ fees on the terms of the same written lease, and that *435he admitted the amount of rent due under the lease on the stand, among other places, the court should have allowed proof of the lease and rent amount through those secondary sources (see *East Egg*Assoc. *v Diraffaele,*158 Misc 2d 364, 366 [1993], *affd*160 Misc 2d 667 [1994]).

As plaintiff concedes, its failure to cash the rent checks tendered by defendant acts as a waiver of any claim to prejudgment interest or attorneys’ fees *(San-Dar Assoc. v Toro,*213 AD2d 233, 234-235 [1995]). It was undisputed that plaintiff failed to tender renewal leases to defendant, a rent-stabilized tenant. However, that does not constitute a waiver of rent; it simply requires that plaintiff prove the rent through quantum meruit, or some subsequent agreement of the parties *(see Sacchetti v Rogers,*12 Misc 3d 131 [A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51114[U] [2006]). Here, given defendant’s numerous admissions of the rent term and the amount tendered, plaintiff met that burden. Because plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to $42,544.32 in back rent, we remand for a trial on defendant’s counterclaims, setoffs and affirmative defenses, except for the counterclaims for sanctions and attorneys’ fees and the affirmative defense of laches. Defendant is not entitled to sanctions and attorneys’ fees, as plaintiff is the prevailing party and entitled to back rent. Further, this Court previously dismissed defendant’s affirmative defense of laches *(see*21 AD3d at 794, 799). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Roman, JJ.

Motion seeking, inter alia, to dismiss cross appeal denied.