alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 86 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 19617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10879]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-63-003]


Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.; Notice of Proposed 
Changed in FERC Gas Tariff

April 26, 1996.
    Take notice that on April 24, 1996, Iroquois Gas Transmission 
System, L.P. (Iroquois) tendered for filing to be part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheet, 
with an effective date of January 1, 1996:

Second Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 38

    Iroquois states that the purpose of the instant filing is to comply 
with the Commission's April 9, 1996, order in the captioned proceeding 
conditionally accepting one tariff sheet filed on January 16, 1`996. 
The revised tariff sheet reflects that sharing of revenues under Rate 
Schedule PAL will be calculated on an annual basis.
    Iroquois states that copies of its filing were served on all 
parties to the proceeding as well as all jurisdictional customers and 
interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C., 20426, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make Protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the public reference room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-10879 Filed 5-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 99(a)(2)

                              Management Assertion


As of and for the year ended December 31, 2003, CitiFinancial Mortgage Company,
Inc. complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing standards set
forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single
Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers. The portfolios covered by this
representation include Associates Home Equity Loan Asset-Backed Certificates,
Series 1998-1 and REMIC Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-1, 2003-1,
2003-2, 2003-3, and 2003-4. As of and for this same period, CitiFinancial
Mortgage Company, Inc. had in effect a fidelity bond and errors and omissions
policy in the amount of $50,000,000.


                                                /s/ James Miller
                                            ---------------------------
                                                           James Miller
                                                Managing Director - EVP

                                                    March 26, 2004
                                            ---------------------------
                                                                   Date
#### Keith Dwight MANNING, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Nos. 642-89 thru 646-89.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

June 28, 1989.

C. Wayne Huff, Dallas, for appellant.

John Vance, Dist. Atty., Patricia Poppoff Noble, Jim Oatman and Leann Breading, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted by a jury for three offenses of aggravated robbery, one murder and one attempted murder. He was sentenced to 50 years imprisonment for the robberies and life imprisonment for the other offenses. On first appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. *Manning v. State,*704 S.W.2d 825 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1985). On petition to this Court, the cases were abated for a competency hearing on whether appellant was competent to stand trial when the cases were tried. *Manning v. State,*730 S.W.2d 744 (Tex.Cr.App.1987). After the jury found appellant was competent to stand trial in 1985, the Court of Appeals again affirmed the convictions. *Manning v. State,*766 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1988). Appellant filed a petition for discretionary review in this Court raising one ground for review on whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that the testimony of appellant’s former attorney at the competency hearing did not violate the attorney-client privilege under Tex.R.Crim.Evid. 503.

*569We have reviewed that part of the Court of Appeals’ opinion dealing with the merits of the attorney-client privilege claim and find it to be sound. We therefore adopt that part of the opinion as our own without further comment.

Appellant’s petition for discretionary review is summarily granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

CLINTON, TEAGUE, MILLER and DUNCAN, JJ., concur in the result.
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 this quarterly report of Peer Review Mediation and
Arbitration, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), we, the undersigned, in the capacities
and on the date indicated below, 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 our knowledge:

   1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Rule 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/Willis Hale
                                 ----------------------
                                 Willis Hale
                                 Chief Executive Officer


                                 /s/Marc E. Combs
                                 ----------------------
                                 Marc E. Combs
                                 Chief Financial Officer

Dated:  August 23, 2011
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 30683]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12095]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Special Projects 
Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Special 
Projects Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is 
soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving 
customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday, July 8, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or 
202-317-4110.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Special Projects 
Committee will be held Thursday, July 8, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern 
Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written 
statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of 
meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with 
Antoinette Ross. For more information please contact Antoinette Ross at 
1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4110, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution 
Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at the website: 
http://www.improveirs.org. The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: June 4, 2021.
Kevin Brown,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2021-12095 Filed 6-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
II 

Calendar No. 461 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5640 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 4, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AUGUST 1, 2024 

Reported by Mr. PETERS, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 12804 Chillicothe Road in Chesterland, Ohio, 

as the ‘‘Sgt. Wolfgang Kyle Weninger Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SGT. WOLFGANG KYLE WENINGER POST OF4 FICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 12804 Chillicothe Road in 

7 Chesterland, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the 

8 ‘‘Sgt. Wolfgang Kyle Weninger Post Office Building’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5640 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sgt. Wolfgang Kyle 

5 Weninger Post Office Building’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 461 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5640 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostWeninger Post Office Building’’. Chesterland, Ohio, as the ‘‘Sgt. Wolfgang Kyle al Service located at 12804 Chillicothe Road in 

AUGUST 1, 2024 

Reported without amendment 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 582 

AN ACT 

To amend the Federal Credit Union Act to modify the frequency of board of directors meetings, 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, 
2 

•HR 582 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Credit Union Board 

3 Modernization Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FREQUENCY OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETINGS. 

5 Section 113 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 

6 U.S.C. 1761b) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘monthly’’ each place such term 

8 appears; 

9 (2) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by 

10 striking ‘‘The board of directors’’ and inserting the 

11 following: 

12 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The board of directors’’; 

13 (3) in subsection (a) (as so designated), by 

14 striking ‘‘shall meet at least once a month and’’; and 

15 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

16 ‘‘(b) MEETINGS.—The board of directors of a Federal 

17 credit union shall meet as follows: 

18 ‘‘(1) With respect to a de novo Federal credit 

19 union, not less frequently than monthly during each 

20 of the first five years of the existence of such Fed21 eral credit union. 

22 ‘‘(2) Not less than six times annually, with at 

23 least one meeting held during each fiscal quarter, 

24 with respect to a Federal credit union— 

25 ‘‘(A) with composite rating of either 1 or 

26 2 under the Uniform Financial Institutions 
3 

•HR 582 EH

1 Rating System (or an equivalent rating under a 

2 comparable rating system); and 

3 ‘‘(B) with a capability of management rat4 ing under such composite rating of either 1 or 

5 2. 

6 ‘‘(3) Not less frequently than once a month, 

7 with respect to a Federal credit union— 

8 ‘‘(A) with composite rating of either 3, 4, 

9 or 5 under the Uniform Financial Institutions 

10 Rating System (or an equivalent rating under a 

11 comparable rating system); or 

12 ‘‘(B) with a capability of management rat13 ing under such composite rating of either 3, 4, 

14 or 5.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 30, 

2023. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 582 

AN ACT 

To amend the Federal Credit Union Act to modify 

for other purposes. the frequency of board of directors meetings, and
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5861 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5861

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To extend reemployment services and eligibility assessments to all 
      claimants for unemployment benefits, 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 ``Building on Reemployment 
Improvements to Deliver Good Employment for Workers Act'' or the 
``BRIDGE for Workers Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR REEMPLOYMENT SERVICES.

    (a) In General.--Section 306(a) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 506(a)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``individuals referred to reemployment 
        services as described in section 303(j)'' and inserting 
        ``claimants for regular compensation, including claimants 
        referred to reemployment services as described in section 
        303(j),''; and
            (2) by striking ``such individuals'' and inserting ``such 
        claimants''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 17, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5861

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To extend reemployment services and eligibility assessments to all 
      claimants for unemployment benefits, and for other purposes.
```
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20D0203. MELVIN SEAY et al. v. GWINNETT COUNTY DEPARTMENT

OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN SERVICES.

Melvin and Tamika Seay filed a petition to adopt their grandchild. The

Gwinnett County Department of Family and Children Services filed an objection to

the adoption petition. After a hearing, the trial court granted the Department’s

objection and denied and dismissed the Seays’ adoption petition. The Seays then

filed this timely application for discretionary appeal.

Order granting or denying an adoption may be appealed directly, so long asthe

appellant raises arguments on appeal challenging the adoption issue. See Price v.

Grehofsky, 349 Ga. App. 214, 216-217 (825 SE2d 594) (2019) (order denying

stepparent’s adoption petition and denying termination of biological parent’s rights

was directly appealable); see also Sauls v. Atchison, 326 Ga. App. 301, 303-304 (1)

(756 SE2d 577) (2014) ((order granting stepparent adoption and terminating

biological parent’s rights was directly appealable).

Under OCGA § 5-6-35 (j), this Court will grant an otherwise timely

discretionary application if the trial court’s order is subject to direct appeal.

Accordingly, the Seays’ application is hereby GRANTED. They shall have ten days

from the date of this order to file a notice of appeal with the superior court. If,

however, they have already filed a notice of appeal, they need not file a second notice. 

December 20, 2019
The superior court is DIRECTED to include a copy of this order in the appellate

record.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

12/20/2019
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Cornelius WILLIAMS, Appellant. Cornelius WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 61851, 67206.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

July 18, 1995.

Gary E. Brotherton, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GRIMM, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

In this jury-tried case, defendant was convicted of second degree murder, in violation of § 565.021 RSMo 1994, four counts of first degree robbery, § 569.020, and five counts of armed criminal action, § 571.015. Defendant was sentenced as a prior offender to one term of life imprisonment to run consecutively with four thirty-year and five twenty-year sentences to run concurrently. Defendant appeals the judgment and sentences. He also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for posteonviction relief after an evi-dentiary hearing.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgments of the trial court and motion court are affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
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

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTS OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Liska Biometry, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Chris LeClerc, as
Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Manoj Hippola, as Financial Officer
of the Company, each hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


/s/ Chris LeClerc
Chris LeClerc, CEO
April 19, 2006
EXHIBIT 23.2

Consent of GeothermEx, Inc.

We consent to the use by Raser Technologies, Inc. (the Company) of our report,
dated August 1, 2008, and we consent to the use of all quotations, summaries or information derived from such report, including any geothermal resource data, included or incorporated by reference in the Companys periodic reports on Forms 10-K,
10-Q and 8-K and in the Registration Statements of the Company on Form S-8 (No. 333-123124), Form S-8 (No. 333-141495), Form S-3 (No. 333-142779), Form S-3 (No. 333-142884), Form S-3 (No. 333-151330) and Form S-3 (No. 333-155392), and any amendments
thereto. We also consent to all references to us included or incorporated by reference in the Companys periodic reports and the foregoing registration statements.

GeothermEx, Inc.



|    |  |                          
|--- |  | -------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Subir K. Sanyal      
|    |  | Subir K. Sanyal President

March 10, 2009
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADDED BY
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the consolidated financial condition and
results of the Company as of and for the period covered by this
Report.
 By:
    
    /s/ Mr. William J. McGurkMr. William J. McGurkPresident and Chief Executive OfficerNovember 14, 2005By:
    
    /s/ Mr. Gregory A. WhiteMr. Gregory A. WhiteChief Financial Officer and TreasurerNovember 14, 2005
 The forgoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 has been provided to Rockville Financial, Inc. and will be retained by Rockville Financial,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 BioForce Nanosciences  Holdings,
Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending March 31, 2006, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Eric  Henderson,  Principal  Accounting  Officer of the  Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.


/S/   ERIC HENDERSON
----------------------------------
Eric Henderson
Principal Accounting Officer
August 7, 2006



     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement 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.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's   Form   10-QSB/A   solely   pursuant   to  section  906  of  the
     Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002  (subsections  (a) and  (b) of  section  1350,
     chapter 63 of title 18,  United States Code) and is not being filed as part
     of the Form 10-QSB/A or as a separate disclosure document.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roberto Diaz, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered May 20, 1987, which convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and sentenced him to an indeterminate prison term of from 2 to 4 years, is unanimously affirmed.

The court properly rejected defendant’s motion at sentencing to withdraw his guilty plea, which urged that, given his allocution, the court should have further inquired into his guilt before accepting his plea. A sufficient inquiry was made. Bare allegations of innocence or coercion do not mandate the granting of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, particularly when they follow an admission of complicity at the plea proceeding *(People v Billingsley,*54 NY2d 960, 961), and when they are controverted, as here, by defendant’s own counsel. The minutes of the plea and sentencing proceedings refute any contention of off-the-record coercion *(see, People v Frederick,*45 NY2d 520). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Asch, Wallach and Smith, JJ.