alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel, Dyslexia Rat Model.                    

*Date:*                         November 20, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         12 p.m. to 3 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, 5B01, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Norman Chang, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-1485,                         *changn@mail.nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 30, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-5533 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Yakun International Investment & Holding Group (formerly, Rhino Productions, Inc.), a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Yakun Song, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), 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 result of operations of the Company.





Dated: June 12, 2012





/s/Yakun Song


Yakun Song


Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)





[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Yakun International Investment & Holding Group and will be retained by Yakun International Investment & Holding Group and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
# C_2011209EN.01002001.xml

| 15.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/20

---

Communication from the Commission pursuant to Articles 14(1) and 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross-border payments in the Community and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 (1)

1

2011/C 209/12

On 16 September 2009, the Council and the European Parliament adopted Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 on cross-border payments in the Community.

Article 14(1) of this Regulation stipulates that a Member State that does not have euro as its currency may decide to extend the application of this Regulation to its national currency. In addition, Article 3(3) of the Regulation specifies that a Member State which has notified the extension of the application to its currency may also decide that a national payment denominated in the currency of that Member State is to be considered a corresponding payment to a cross-border payment denominated in euro.

On 26 May 2011, the Commission received a notification that the Romanian Government had decided to extend the Regulation’s application to payments in the Romanian lei. The extension of the Regulation to Romanian lei, pursuant to Article 14(1), shall take effect 14 days after publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. From that day onwards cross-border payments in Romanian lei shall be charged the same as national payments in lei.

Official Journal of the European Union

The Romanian authorities have also decided that as of 1 January 2012, a national payment denominated in Romanian lei shall become a corresponding payment to a cross-border payment denominated in lei and in euro. From that day onwards cross-border payments in Romanian lei and in euro shall be charged the same as national payments in lei.

---

(1)  OJ L 266, 9.10.2009, p. 11.

1

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

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

In connection withthe Optio Software, Inc. (the “Company”) Annual Report on Form 10-Kfor the period ended January 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, C. Wayne Cape, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to my knowledge:

(1).      The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

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

| Date: May 1, 2007 |   | By:    |   | /s/ C. Wayne Cape       |   |
|------------------------|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                   |   |   |   | C. Wayne Cape           |
|                   |   |   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the annual reportpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not bedeemed to be filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, nor shall it be deemed to be aseparate disclosure document.

----
#### LULA C. BURKEY, Administratrix of the Estate of ROBERT C. BURKEY, Deceased v. L. G. KORNEGAY and wife, VICKIE GRANT KORNEGAY, Partners trading as “BARBECUE LODGE,” and HUEY LONG GINN.

(Filed 25 March 1964.)

Trial § 35—

A remark of the court in its charge that a witness was “of perhaps weak mentality” must be held for prejudicial error as tending to discredit the witness, there being no admission, stipulation or testimony in the record bearing on the mental condition of the witness.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Cowper, J.,*November 1963 Session of LENOIR.

*Wallace & Langley fot' plaintiff appellant.*

*White <& Aycock for defendant appellees.*

Per Curiam.

This is an action for wrongful death. G.S. 28-173 and 174. On 26 September 1962 plaintiff’s intestate was struck by a motor vehicle owned by defendants Kornegay and operated by defendant Ginn. From the -injuries received he died “a few moments later.” The accident occurred near the center of Vernon Avenue in the City of Kinston. Deceased had walked northwardly to a point at or near the center of the avenue; Ginn was driving westwardly along the avenue.

The jury found that the death was proximately caused by the negligence of defendants, and that deceased’s negligence was a contributory cause. From judgment denying recovery, plaintiff appeals.

Two eyewitnesses testified foi plaintiff. One was a young lady who could not read or write. She gave an account of the occurrence favorable to plaintiff. Thereafter, on both direct and cross examination there were conflicts and discrepancies in her testimony; at times she was hesitant; on two or more occasions she did not answer questions propounded to her.

In charging the jury the judge commented: “Plaintiff offered the testimony of (naming the witness), a young lady of perhaps weak mentality.”

There is no admission, stipulation or testimony in the record bearing on the mental condition of the witness. The judge undoubtedly concluded from her manner of testifying that the young lady’s mental capacity was subnormal. But G.S. 1-180 prohibits the judge from expressing such opinion. The challenged comment tended to discredit the witness and amounted to an expression of opinion that her testimony was of little weight. The credibility of the witness and the weight of *514her testimony were matters solely for the determination of the jury uninfluenced by any opinion of the judge. “The court in its charge may not intimate or express an opinion as to the facts, the weight of the evidence, or the credibility of the witnesses, either directly or indirectly, in any manner.” 4 Strong: N. C. Index, Trial, s. 35, p. 339; *Bailey v. Hayman,*220 N.C. 402, 17 S.E. 2d 520; *Curruthers v. R. R.,*218 N.C. 49, 9 S.E. 2d 498. The fact that the expression of opinion is an inadvertence renders the error nonetheless prejudicial. *Miller v. R. R.,*240 N.C. 617, 83 S.E. 2d 533.

New trial.
December 31, 2008




David Gilmer, Secretary

Grant Hartford Corporation

619 S.W. Higgins, Suite O

Missoula, MT 59830


 



Dear David;


This is to clarify that I am drawing $5,000 per month from the
Company and that my Employment Agreement states that my compensation is $15,000 per
month starting June 1, 2008. Since June 1st, 2008, I have chosen to accrue $10,000
of my compensation per month with the Company at no interest and no plan of payment.
I intend to continue accruing this amount each month until the Company is fiscally able.


 

Best regards


 


Aaron Charlton
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cr15-RH/WCS

JEREL ROOSEVELT HOLLINGER,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL

A jury found the defendant not guilty on both counts alleged in the

indictment. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The defendant is acquitted and discharged. Any bond is exonerated.

SO ORDERED on September 1, 2010.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 5433]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-547]


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

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY: United States Election Assistance Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting for EAC Standards Board.

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

Date And Time: Tuesday, February 20, 2007, 6:30 p.m.-9 p.m. Wednesday, 
21, 2007, 8:30 a.m.-6 p.m. Thursday, 22, 2007, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Friday, 
23, 2007, 8:30 a.m.-11 a.m.

Place: Ritz-Carleton Atlanta, 191 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, GA 
30303, (404) 659-0400.

Purpose: The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Standards Board, 
as required by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), will meet and 
receive updates on EAC projects and activities and discuss other 
relevant matters pertaining to the administration of federal elections. 
The Board will receive updates on the following subject: EAC's voting 
system certification and laboratory accreditation program and 
activities of the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) 
regarding the voluntary voting system guidelines. The business portion 
of the meeting will include an election for three vacancies on the 
Executive Board and the presentation of redrafted bylaws.
    This meeting will be open to the public.

Person to Contact for Information: Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (202) 
566-3100.

Thomas R. Wilkey,
Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
[FR Doc. 07-547 Filed 2-2-07; 3:32 pm]
BILLING CODE 6820-KF-M
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2190 

To amend the Small Business Act to ensure that the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands is eligible for certain Small Business 

Administration programs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 18, 2019 

Ms. HIRONO introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to ensure that the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is eligible 

for certain Small Business Administration programs, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Northern Mariana Is5 lands Small Business Act’’. 


Pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2190 IS

1 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE 

2 NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS FOR CERTAIN 

3 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION PRO4 GRAMS. 

5 The Small Business Act is amended— 

6 (1) in section 7(m)(7)(B) (15 U.S.C. 

7 636(m)(7)(B))— 

8 (A) by striking ‘‘and American Samoa’’ 

9 each place such term appears and inserting 

10 ‘‘American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of 

11 the Northern Mariana Islands’’; and 

(B) in clause (i)(I)(bb), by striking ‘‘1 12 ⁄55’’ 

and inserting ‘‘1 13 ⁄56’’; 

14 (2) in section 21(a) (15 U.S.C. 648(a))— 

15 (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting before 

16 ‘‘The Administration shall require’’ the fol17 lowing new sentence: ‘‘The previous sentence 

18 shall not apply to an applicant that has its 

19 principal office located in the Commonwealth of 

20 the Northern Mariana Islands.’’; and 

21 (B) in paragraph (4)(C)(ix), by striking 

22 ‘‘and American Samoa’’ and inserting ‘‘Amer23 ican Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the 

24 Northern Mariana Islands’’; and 

25 (3) in section 34(a)(9) (15 U.S.C. 657d(a)(9)), 

26 by striking ‘‘and American Samoa’’ and inserting 


Pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2190 IS

1 ‘‘American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the 

2 Northern Mariana Islands’’. 

Æ 


Pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000059479
<NAME>                        LILLY INDUSTRIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                DEC-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  FEB-28-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                               1.000
<CASH>                                            12,617
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     80,862
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2,355
<INVENTORY>                                       47,157
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  147,505
<PP&E>                                            92,833
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (56,540)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    509,997
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             84,472
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                          96,104
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                        49,905
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      509,997
<SALES>                                           143,334
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  143,334
<CGS>                                             89,903
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     129,555
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  67
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                4,534
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   9,178
<INCOME-TAX>                                      4,038
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5,140
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .22
        


</TABLE>
#### HENNIE P. LUCAS v. HENRY HAROLD BRITT.

(Filed 2 June, 1965.)

Appeal and Error § 1—

The conclusion to be reached upon conflicting evidence is the province of the jury and its verdict is conclusive on appeal.

Appeal by defendant from *Hall, J.,*November 1964 Civil Session of ROBESON.

Plaintiff instituted this action to recover damages resulting from a collision between an automobile operated by her and an automobile operated by defendant. The usual issues of negligence, contributory negligence and damage were submitted to a jury. It answered the first issue “yes,” the second “no,” and fixed the compensation to which plaintiff was entitled. Judgment for plaintiff, in accordance with the verdict, was entered.

*Johnson, McIntyre, Hedgepeth, Biggs & Campbell for defendant appellant.*

*602*Henry & Henry for plaintiff appellee.*

PER CuRiam.

Defendant has no exception to the evidence. The charge was omitted from the record. Appellant, in his brief, asks only one question: Did the court err in refusing to allow his motion to non-suit?

In the absence of the charge, we must assume that the court made it clear to the jury that their answers to the issues submitted depended entirely on their evaluation of conflicting testimony. The collision occurred in the daytime. Plaintiff was traveling east on U. S. Highway #74. Defendant was traveling west. Plaintiff alleged defendant drove his car into that portion of the highway set aside for eastbound traffic, causing a collision which occurred 3.4 feet south of the center line of the highway. Her evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to her, supports her allegation.

Defendant testified the collision occurred in his lane of travel; plaintiff went to sleep; she turned from her proper lane into defendant’s lane, hit an embankment on the north side of the road; she sought to get back into her lane, at which time the collision occurred. Plaintiff, on cross examination, admitted when she first saw defendant she was in the center of the road; she immediately turned right into her lane. The two vehicles were then 100 yards apart.

Resolution of the factual controversy, disclosed by the evidence, was properly left to the jury. Conflicts in evidence do not present questions of law. *Watt v. Crews,*261 N.C. 143, 134 S.E. 2d 199; *Bridges v. Graham,*246 N.C. 371, 98 S.E. 2d 492. If, as defendant contends, the jury reached a wrong result, we are without power to correct the error. See concurring opinion of Barnhill, C.J. in *Jyachosky v. Wensil,*240 N.C. 217, 81 S.E. 2d 644.

Affirmed.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Services; Lyonel F. Paul, M.D., as Assignee of Bertrand, Edvard, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>GEICO Ins. Co., Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant.Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered October 27, 2016. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).</p><p>Contrary to plaintiff's contentions, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the EUO scheduling letters and denial of claim form had been timely mailed (<a href="../2008/2008_04072.htm" target="_blank"><i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123</a> [2008]) and to demonstrate that plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs (<a href="../2006/2006_09604.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.</i>, 35 AD3d 720</a> [2006]). Furthermore, defendant was not required to set forth objective reasons for requesting EUOs in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as an insurer need only demonstrate "as a matter of law that it twice duly demanded an [EUO] from the [provider] . . . that the provider twice failed to appear and that the [insurer] issued a timely denial of the claim[]" (<a href="../2014/2014_00092.htm" target="_blank"><i>Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon</i>, 113 AD3d 596</a>, 597 [2014]; <a href="../2017/2017_50208.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Parisien v Metlife Auto &amp; Home</i>, 54 Misc 3d 143</a>[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50208[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>13th Jud Dists 2017]; <a href="../2015/2015_51653.htm" target="_blank"><i>Palafox PT, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.</i>, 49 Misc 3d 144</a>[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51653[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2015]). Consequently, plaintiff has not provided any basis to disturb the Civil Court's order.</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: May 10, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>