alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8818]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Task Force on the Future of the NSF Supercomputer Centers 
Program, Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Task Force on the Future of the NSF Supercomputer Centers 
Program (#1982)
    Date and Time: April 27, 1995 1:00-8:00 pm, April 28, 1995 8:00 
am-3:00 pm
    Place: NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA (tentatively 
scheduled for Rm. 375)
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Robert Borchers, Director, Division of 
Advanced Scientific Computing, Directorate for Computer and 
Information Science and Engineering, National Science Foundation, 
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, 703/306-1970.
    Minutes:: May be obtained from the contact person listed above.
    Meeting Purpose: The objective of the Task Force is to advise 
the NSF on the future of its Supercomputing Centers Program 
considering the changing nature of computing and information science 
and technology. Its scope will be limited to NSF's support for 
advanced computational science. This meeting is to seek advice and 
testimony from representatives of the supercomputer industry, 
academic leaders in High Performance Computing, representative users 
of the NSF Supercomputing Centers and some principal investigators 
of Grand Challenge Projects. The Task force will continue its 
discussions on the principles to be used in evaluating the options 
of future programs, and hear reports on visits of members to the 
four existing Supercomputer Centers.

Agenda

April 27, 1995 (1:00 to 8:00 pm)

1:00-5:00  Advice and testimony from members of the High Performance 
Computing Community.
 6:00-8:00  Working Dinner--Subcommittee Reports

April 28, 1995 (8:00 am to 3:00 pm)

8:00-9:00  Assemble, Continental Breakfast
9:00-11:00  Advice and testimony from members of the High 
Performance Computing Community.
11:00-12:00  Subcommittee meetings
12:00-1:00  Working Lunch
1:00-2:00  Subcommittee Meetings, Center Inspection reports
2:00-3:00  Recap, review assignments, set next meeting agenda

    Dated: April 5, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-8818 Filed 4-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
1

 Quinnan v. American Hosp. Supply Corp., No. 85-195-II, 1985 WL 4076 (Tenn. App.

29 Oct. 1985).

2

 Winkler v. Fleetline Prods., Inc., 859 S.W.2d 340 (Tenn. App. 1993).

FILED

October 3, 1997

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

MIDDLE SECTION

AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE

The Outdoor Source, Inc., )

Plaintiff/Appellant, ) Appeal No.

) 01-A-01-9702- CH-00053

v. )

) Chancery Court No.

Outdoor Entertainment, Inc., ) 95-2732-I

Defendant/Appellee. ) 

ORDER

This court entered an order on 13 August 1997 in the above styled case.

Defendant/appellee, Outdoor Entertainment, Inc. (“OEI”), filed a petition for

rehearing on 25 August 1997. It is the opinion of this court that the petition should

be denied.

OEI argues the parties were not heard on the issue of whether the contract

contained an unequivocal provision. To the contrary, plaintiff/appellant, The Outdoor

Source, Inc. (“TOSI”), raised this issue in its initial brief. OEI had the opportunity

to respond in its brief and during oral argument.

OEI also argues our conclusion that section 11(a) constituted an unlawful

forfeiture and our reliance on Quinnan1

 are contradictory. Specifically, OEI states:

“Quinnan held that parties may agree that no commissions will be paid after a

salesperson’s employment is terminated, so long as such agreement is ‘unequivocal.’

However, the Court’s holding that this contract - even if unequivocal - would work

a forfeiture against TOSI is inconsistent with Quinnan and Winkler.

2

” This court did

not hold that an unequivocal agreement would have operated as a forfeiture. Instead,

this court decided based on our earlier conclusion that the Agreement did not contain

an unequivocal expression that OEI’s interpretation of section 11(a) constituted a

forfeiture. Despite OEI’s assertions to the contrary, this court did not address the
issue of whether there would have been a forfeiture if section 11(a) unequivocally

denied TOSI post-termination commissions.

We have considered all remaining arguments raised by OEI and find them to

be without merit.

Therefore, it follows that the petition for rehearing is hereby denied. Costs of

this petition are taxed against petitioner/appellee, Outdoor Entertainment, Inc.

Enter this the ____ day of September 1997.

______________________________

HENRY F. TODD, PRESIDING

JUDGE, MIDDLE SECTION

______________________________

SAMUEL L. LEWIS, JUDGE

______________________________

BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4886

Arrowhead Electrical Products, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
#### Briarwood Towers 85th Company, Appellant, v Gerald Guterman et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Irving Kirschenbaum, J.), entered April 10, 1989, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In the underlying action, plaintiff Briarwood Towers 85th Company, a New York limited partnership which sold certain parcels of real property and an apartment house complex to respondent Moral Five Corporation, sought to recover $1,183,296,

*163allegedly due and payable as a result of respondents’ refusal to satisfy a duly executed purchase-money wrap-around promissory note in the original amount of $5,500,000.

Upon review of the record, we find that the Supreme Court did not err in finding, on the basis of the credible testimony and documents received in evidence at trial, that plaintiff had stopped making payments to the underlying mortgagees in 1977, three years prior to any alleged default by respondents; that the $5.5 million wrap-around note was, by its own terms, one with nonrecourse against the maker, respondent Moral Five Corporation; that by neglecting to record the mortgage, plaintiff had failed to protect the collateral and that plaintiff’s sole remedy was, therefore, to proceed against the collateral securing the note. In any event, we note that plaintiff had impaired the collateral by acquiescing in the sale of the subject property from respondent Moral Five Corporation to respondent City Partners, Ltd. "subject to mortgages, liens and encumbrances of record”, and suffered no monetary damage as a consequence of any default or impairment of the collateral by respondents. Concur—Ross, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Staten Island Advanced Surgical Supply, as Assignee of Lei Dai, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>GEICO Ins. Co., Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Law Office of Printz &amp; Goldstein (Lawrence J. Chanice, Esq.), for appellant.Law Offices of Emilia I. Rutigliano, P.C. (Emilia I. Rutigliano, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Cheree A. Buggs, J.), entered February 6, 2015. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,670.30.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial. </p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for medical supplies it had provided to its assignor, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Civil Court which, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,670.30.</p><p>For the reasons stated in <i>Staten Is. Advanced Surgical Supply, as Assignee of Gu Zhang v GEICO Ins. Co. </i>(___ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2015-1734 Q C], decided herewith), the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: December 22, 2017<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>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5173 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5173

To apply the Freedom of Information Act to actions and decisions of the 
 Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information in 
   carrying out the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 8, 2023

Mr. Pfluger (for himself, Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania, Mr. Balderson, Mr. 
  Carter of Georgia, Mr. Dunn of Florida, Mr. Weber of Texas, and Mr. 
   Fulcher) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To apply the Freedom of Information Act to actions and decisions of the 
 Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information in 
   carrying out the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program.

    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 ``Broadband Buildout Accountability 
Act''.

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY OF FOIA TO THE BROADBAND EQUITY, ACCESS, AND 
              DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM.

    Section 60102(o)(2) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
(47 U.S.C. 1702(o)(2)) is amended by inserting after ``Act')'' the 
following: ``, except for section 552 of that title (commonly referred 
to as the `Freedom of Information Act')''.
                                 <all>
```
Camber Energy, Inc. 10-Q



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 Quarterly Report of Camber Energy, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2020, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert Schleizer, Chief Financial
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 the best of my knowledge and belief: (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.



December 18, 2020



|/s/
    Robert Schleizer                     | 
|-------------------------------------------- | 
|Robert
    Schleizer                         | 
|Chief
    Financial Officer                  | 
|(Principal
    Financial/Accounting Officer) | 



The
foregoing certification is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”), and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing
of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, whether made before or after the date hereof,
regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

** **

**Consent of Independent RegisteredPublic Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-88454) pertaining to the First Amendedand Restated 1999 Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement(Form S-8 No. 333-143216) pertaining to the Alamo Group Inc. 2005 IncentiveStock Option Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-91804)pertaining to the Alamo Group Inc. 1994 Incentive Stock Option Plan of AlamoGroup Inc. of our report dated March 6, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Alamo Group Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2010.

 

 

 

| San  Antonio, Texas	March 11,  2011 | /s/Ernst  & Young LLP |
|-------------------------------------|---------------------------|
|                                |  

             |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roger McClary, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lakritz, J.), rendered May 9, 1988, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s conviction arose out of the fatal shooting of Benson Simmons on August 8, 1986.

On the instant appeal, the defendant argues that his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt in view of (1) several inconsistencies in, and between, the testimony of two key prosecution witnesses, (2) the criminal record of one of these witnesses, and (3) alibi testimony proffered by the defense. We disagree. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to *477be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, or without merit (CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Dawson,*50 NY2d 311; *People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396, 400-401; *People v Roopchand,*107 AD2d 35, *affd*65 NY2d 837; *People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Rubin and Balletta, JJ., concur.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7283

TI Group Automotive Systems, LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests. 

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-4822

_____________________________

JOSEPH L. TOMLIN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Tatiana Salvador, Judge.

February 15, 2019

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED as untimely.

MAKAR, WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Joseph L. Tomlin, pro se, Appellant.
2

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 67 (Friday, April 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17777]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8589]



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


COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED

Proposed Additions to the Procurement List; Correction

    In the document appearing on page 11958, F.R. Doc. 95-5290, in the 
issue of March 3, 1995, in the second column, the NSN shown as 6515-01-
225-8497 should read 6515-01-135-8497.
Beverly L. Milkman,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 95-8589 Filed 4-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-33-P
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Solely for the purpose of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and solely to the extent this certification may be applicable to this report, the undersigned hereby certify that this report of Tenthgate Incorporated (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|                     |          |                                  |
|--------------------------|---------------|---------------------------------------|
| Dated: December 20, 2005 | /s/ Tim Novak |                                  |
|                     | Name:         | Tim Novak                             |
|                     | Title:        | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                     |          | Chief Financial Officer               |
|                          |               |                                       |  |  |
<PAGE>


                              AMENDED AND RESTATED
                         HORIZON GROUP PROPERTIES, INC.
                                     BY-LAWS

                     Originally adopted as of April 28, 1998
                    Third Amendment adopted as of May 4, 2001

Pursuant to Article 10 of the Amended and Restated By-Laws of Horizon Group
Properties, Inc. (the "Corporation") and by the action of the Board of Directors
of the Corporation at the meeting of the Board of Directors on May 4, 2001,
Section 2.02 of the Amended and Restated By-Laws of the Corporation is hereby
replaced in its entirety with the following new Section 2.02:

     "Section 2.02 ANNUAL MEETING. The annual meeting of the stockholders
     shall be held on the second Tuesday in May (or on such other date as
     may be established from time to time by resolution of the Board of
     Directors), at such place and time as the Board of Directors may from
     time to time designate. At each annual meeting, stockholders entitled
     to vote shall elect the members of the Board of Directors and transact
     such other business as may be properly brought before the meeting in
     accordance with the Articles of Amendment and Restatement of the
     Corporation (the "Articles") and, to the extent not inconsistent
     therewith, notice procedures specified in Section 2.04 below."

 THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED BY-LAWS OF THE CORPORATION IS
ADOPTED AS OF MAY 4, 2001.

                                      24