alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Irene Paino, Individually and as Supervisor of the Town of Wappinger, Petitioner, v Arthur Y. Webb, as Commissioner of the State of New York Office of Mental Retardation, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the State of New York Office of Mental Retardation, dated February 2, 1988, which after a hearing, rejected the petitioner’s objection to the establishment of a community residential facility.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

*700The party contesting the establishment of a community residence facility must show that it would result in a concentration of the same or similar facilities such that the nature and character of the area would be altered *(see,*Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 [c] [5]; *Matter of Town of Hempstead v Commissioner of State of N. Y. Off. of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities,*121 AD2d 388). Such challenges may be sustained only when the evidence offered in opposition is concrete and of a convincing nature *(see, Grasmere Homeowners’ Assn. v Introne,*84 AD2d 778). The record before us does not show concrete and convincing evidence that such a detrimental alteration would occur *(see, Town of Hempstead v Commissioner of State of N. Y. Off. of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities, supra,*at 388). Moreover, the Commissioner’s determination to the contrary was supported by substantial evidence *(see, Town of Ramapo v Webb,*137 AD2d 518).

We further conclude that the record contains substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s finding that the alternative sites proposed by the petitioner for a community residential facility were not superior to the site selected by the sponsoring agency *(see, Town of Ramapo v Webb, supra,*at 518).

The petitioner’s contention that the Commissioner’s determination should be annulled because he failed to conduct a hearing within 15 days of the request therefor and to render a determination within 30 days of the hearing is meritless. This court has previously ruled that the time requirements set forth in Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 (c) (5) are directory and not mandatory *(see, Town of Pleasant Val. v Wassaic Developmental Disabilities Servs. Off.,*92 AD2d 543). Furthermore, the petitioner was in no way prejudiced by the minor delay which occurred.

We have reviewed the petitioner’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. Mangano, J. P., Fiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.
HYNES & HOWES INSURANCE COUNSELORS, INC.
                             Statement of Cash Flows
              For the Years Ended September 30, 1998, 1997 and 1996
      Reconciliation of Net Income to Cash Provided by Operating Activities



                                                 Year Ended September 30,
                                          1998             1997            1996

Net Income (Loss)                    $  16,640       $   (4,385)     $   15,397
Adjustments to Reconcile Net Income to
   Net Cash Provided (Used) by:
   Gain on Repossession                      0             (629)              0
   Loss on Sale of Real Estate               0            8,568               0

         Total Adjustments           $       0       $    7,939      $        0

Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating
   Activities                        $  16,640       $    3,554      $   15,397


Notes to Financial Statements are an integral part of these statements.
**Exhibit 12.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Masahiko Goto, President and Representative Director of Makita Corporation, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Makita Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regardingthe reliability of financial reporting and preparation of financial statements for external purposein accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: July 5, 2005      **MAKITA CORPORATION**
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 21036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10520]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice No. 3608]

Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on Private International 
Law: Study Group on Franchising Disclosure: Meeting Notice

    There will be a public meeting of a study group of the Secretary of 
State's Advisory Committee on Private International Law on Thursday, 
May 10, 2001, to consider the draft Model Franchising Disclosure Law, 
as prepared by an international working group convened under the 
authority of the International Institute for the Unification of Private 
Law (UNIDROIT). The meeting will be held from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 
in room 100 of the International Law Institute, 1615 New Hampshire 
Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20009. The meeting will be in coordination 
with the American Bar Association and the International Bar 
Association.
    The purpose of the Study Group meeting is to assist the Department 
of State in determining the U.S. negotiating position for the first 
session of a Committee of Governmental Experts convened for the 
preparation of a draft Model Franchise Disclosure Law to be held in 
Rome from June 25-29, 2001.
    The text prepared by the international working group convened under 
UNIDROIT authority will constitute the basic working document of the 
Committee of Governmental Experts. A copy of the preliminary draft 
model law, and a draft explanatory report, is available on UNIDROIT's 
website. These documents may be found at http://www.unidroit.org. 
Persons interested in the work of the study group or in attending the 
May 10 meeting may also request copies from Ms. Rosie Gonzales by fax 
at 202-776-8482, by telephone at 202-776-8420 (you may leave your 
request, name, telephone number, email, or mailing address on the 
answering machine), or by email at [email protected]>. Email is the 
quickest and most efficient way to transmit the documents.
    The study group meeting is open to the public up to the capacity of 
the meeting room. Persons wishing to attend should contact Ms. Gonzales 
by telephone, fax, or email, providing their name, affiliation, 
telephone and fax numbers, and email address. Any person who is unable 
to attend, but wishes to have his or her views considered, may send 
comments to Mary Helen Carlson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the 
Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law (L/PIL), at the 
above fax number or email address, or may address them to Ms. Carlson 
at Room 357, South Building, 2430 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037-
2851.

Mary Helen Carlson,
Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Private 
International Law, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 01-10520 Filed 4-24-01; 3:25 pm]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
```
Department of Agriculture

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Quarterly Report

Fiscal Year 2023, Quarter 1

Component

Number of 

Requests 

Received

Number of 

Requests Processed

Number of 

Requests 

Backlogged

AMS 49 36 47

APHIS 221 230 456

DA/OSEC 74 57 111

FAS 14 4 32

FNS 48 101 251

FS 418 327 862

FSA 1619 1595 65

FSIS 56 67 104

NRCS 59 59 15

OASCR 1 6 13

OBPA 1 1 0

OCFO 11 7 1

OGC 13 9 15

OHA 5 4 1

OIG 27 21 35

RD 109 70 65

REE 26 30 9

RMA 14 17 0

AGENCY OVERALL 2765 2641 2082
#### KNOPE, Respondent, v. NUNN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

June 20, 1894.)

Action by Mary A. Knope against Joseph Nunn.

No opinion. Motion to strike case from the calendar and for affirmance denied, without costs. See 26 N. Y. Supp. 1074.
# FY 2023 Grant Recipients

## FY 2023 Citizenship and Integration Grant Program Award Recipients

In FY 2023, USCIS awarded more than $22 million in grants to 65 organizations. The performance period is October 1, 2023, to September 30, 2025.

For more information, please see the FY 2023 individual program descriptions (PDF, 267.85 KB).

01/19/2024

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 9, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50648 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DAVID SANCHEZ-MONTES, also known as Daniel Gaytan-Montes, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-2680-ALL

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, David SanchezMontes raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 761 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the eligibility of 

parents of certain deceased veterans for interment in national cemeteries. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2009 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the 

eligibility of parents of certain deceased veterans for 

interment in national cemeteries. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INTERMENT IN NATIONAL CEMETERIES OF 

4 PARENTS OF CERTAIN DECEASED VETERANS. 

5 (a) INTERMENT OF PARENTS OF CERTAIN DE6 CEASED VETERANS.—Section 2402 of title 38, United 

7 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol8 lowing new paragraph: 

9 ‘‘(9) If the Secretary determines there is enough 

10 space in open national cemeteries, the parent of a person 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 761 IH

1 listed in any of paragraphs (1) through (4) or paragraph 

2 (7) who, at the time of the parent’s death, does not have 

3 a spouse, surviving spouse, or child who has been interred, 

4 or who, if deceased, would be eligible to be interred, in 

5 a national cemetery pursuant to paragraph (5).’’. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Paragraph (9) of section 

7 2402 of title 38, United States Code, shall apply with re8 spect to the death of an eligible parent on or after the 

9 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

          - 26 CFR Part 1 
          - [REG-106702-00] 
          - RIN 1545-AX94 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking. 

# SUMMARY:

This document provides notice of cancellation of a public hearing on proposed regulations relating to special rules on determination of basis of partner's interest under section 705 of the Internal Revenue Code. 

# DATES:

The public hearing originally scheduled for Thursday, May 3, 2001 at 10 a.m., is cancelled. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sonya M. Cruse of the Regulations Unit, (202) 622-7180 (not a toll-free number). 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    A notice of proposed rulemaking and/or notice or public hearing that appeared in the                     **Federal Register**                     on January 3, 2001, 66 FR 315, announced that a public hearing was scheduled for May 3, 2001 at 10:00 a.m., in Room 6718, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The subject of the public hearing is proposed regulations under section(s) 705 of the Internal Revenue Code. The public comment period of these proposed regulations expired on April 12, 2001.                 

The notice of proposed rulemaking and/or notice of public hearing, instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to submit a request to speak and an outline of the topics to be addressed. As of April 19, 2001, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for May 3, 2001, is cancelled. 

LaNita Van Dyke, 

Acting Chief, Regulations Unit, Office of Special Counsel (Modernization & Strategic Planning). 

[FR Doc. 01-10546 Filed 4-26-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 31.2
I, Jack Blair, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Lawrence Financial
     Holdings, 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 officers 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 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 year 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 of internal control over financial reporting, 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 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
          control over financial reporting.


Date:March 12, 2004


/s/ Jack Blair
----------------------------------
Jack Blair
Chief Executive Officer
### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Se pt e m be r 1, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 10148 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 1 4 0 4 9 - C R - KA M U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s S A M U E L L E E M I D D L E T O N , D e f e n d an t- A p p e llan t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 1, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an dB L A C K , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: L e o n D a n ie l W a tts , c o u n s e l f o rS am u e l L e e M id d le to n , h a s f ile dam o tio n to2

w i thdr a w on appe a l , s upport e d byabr i e f pr e par e d pur s uantt o A nde r s v. C a l i f orni a , 386 U . S . 738, 87 S . C t . 1396, 18 L . E d. 2d 493 ( 1967) . O uri nde pe nde nt r e vi e w of

the e nt i r e r e c or d r e ve a l s tha tc ouns e l ’ s a s s e s s m e ntof the r e l a t i ve m e r i tof th e ap p e a l is c o rr e c t. B e c au s e in d e p e n d e n t e x a m in a tio n o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls n o arg u ab l e i ssu es o f m eri t , co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , a nd M i dd l et on ’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence ar e A FFI R M ED .
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                     CERTIFICATION OF THE PRESIDENT AND CEO

     I, Robert C. Harbage, President and Chief Executive Officer of UBICS, Inc.,
do hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to
my knowledge:

     (1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of UBICS, Inc. for the quarterly
          period ended June 20, 2002 (the "Periodic Report") which this
          statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section
          13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
          78m),

          and

     (2)  the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly represents, in
          all material respects, the financial condition and results of
          operations of UBICS, Inc.

Dated:   August 14, 2002


                                           By: /s/ Robert C. Harbage
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Robert C. Harbage
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeals of

- )

)

ArmorWorks, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos. 62335, 62336

)

Under Contract No. FA8650

- 14

- C

- 2430 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. William J. Perciballi

President

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Arthur M. Taylor, Esq.

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney

Evan Georgopoulos, Esq.

Trial Attorney

Defense Contract Management Agency

Hanscom Air Force Base, MA

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal s are dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: July 2 1 , 2021

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 62335, 62336

, Appeals of

ArmorWorks, Inc. , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: July 21, 2021 JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals