alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 7, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 20524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11321]



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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
[FEMA-1111-DR]


Arkansas; Amendment to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Arkansas, (FEMA-1111-DR), dated April 23, 1996, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 26, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pauline C. Campbell, Response and 
Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, 
DC 20472, (202) 646-3606.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster for the State 
of Arkansas, is hereby amended to include the following areas among 
those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of April 23, 1996:

    The counties of Crawford and Sebastian for Hazard Mitigation 
Assistance. (Already designated for Individual Assistance and Public 
Assistance.)
    The counties of Franklin, Madison, Marion, and Washington for 
Hazard Mitigation. (Already designated for Individual Assistance.)

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.516, Disaster 
Assistance.)
Dennis H. Kwiatkowski,
Deputy Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 96-11321 Filed 5-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
#### $31,400.00 v. The STATE of Texas.

No. D-2698.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Oct. 14, 1992.

Clinard J. Hanby and Nickolas Barrera, Houston, for petitioner.

Dan Morales, Austin, John B. Holmes, Houston, Don J. Clemmer and Alan Curry, Houston, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

In this forfeiture case, the trial court granted the claimant’s motion for summary judgment for, among other things, the State’s failure to request a hearing within 30 days of claimant’s answer, as formerly required by Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 4476-15, § 5.07(a), Act of May 28, 1973, 63rd Leg., R.S., ch. 429, 1973 Tex.Gen. Laws 1132, 1161, as amended, Act of May 25, 1985, 69th Leg., R.S., ch. 227, § 13, 1985 Tex.Gen.Laws 1102, 1124. The court of appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for a trial on the merits, stating that “[bjecause section 5.07(a) was directory and not mandatory, the State may not have a summary judgment entered against it for failing to request or obtain a time for a forfeiture hearing within 30 days after ... [the claimant’s] answer.” 828 S.W.2d 112, 114-15. In *State v. $435,000,*842 S.W.2d 642 (Tex.1992) (per curiam), we held that former section 5.07(a) was mandatory and that the claimant “was entitled to a hearing within thirty days and a prompt trial setting, and would have been entitled to mandamus relief had the trial court refused either; but ... [the claimant] was not entitled to dismissal of the State’s action for the trial court’s failure to consider the case expeditiously.” *Id.*at 645. Petitioner’s application for writ of error is denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7996

MARK A. JOHNSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS MCBRIDE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,

District Judge. (CA-03-53-3)

Submitted: May 18, 2005 Decided: June 3, 2005

Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark A. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Jon Rufus

Blevins, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA,

Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Mark A. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Johnson has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We deny Johnson’s motion to amend his brief.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
# C o urt o f A ppe a ls

o f th e S ta te o f G e o rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 4 A1 71 8 . MCKENZ I E et a l . v . SUBER et a l

.

A p p ellant W y m an M c K e nz i e mo v ed f or an extensio n o f t ime t o f ile his brief

,

and this Co u rt granted his m otio n, extend ing the f iling dead line u ntil J uly 25, 2024.

M c K enz ie has no t f

iled his brief to d ate. A c c o rd in gly, the ap peal is hereby

D I SM I SSED

. See Co u rt o f A p p eals Ru le 23 (a).

C o u r t o f A p p e a ls o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O ffic e

, A t la n t a

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I c e r t ify t h a t t h e a b o v e i

s a t r u e e x t r a c t fr o m

t h e m in u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A pp e a ls o f G e o r g ia

.

W it n e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a id c o u r t

h e r e t o a ffix e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r la s t a b o v e w r

it t e n

.

, C le r

k

. 

## August 02, 2024

08/02/2024
EXHIBIT
31.1




MMC
ENERGY, INC.


OFFICER'S
CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 302





I,
Michael J. Hamilton, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MMC Energy, 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 officer 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
quarter 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 officer 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 the registrant's board of
directors:





(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:
      :May
      15, 2009/s/
      Michael J. HamiltonMichael
      J. HamiltonChief
      Executive Officer
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



In connection with the quarterly report of Four Rivers BioEnergy Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended January 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Gary Hudson, President and Chief Executive Officer and Martin Thorp, Chief Financial Officer, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



(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.



A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been provided to Four Rivers BioEnergy Inc. and will be retained by Four Rivers BioEnergy Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





|                     |                                                                                
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 17, 2008 | /s/ Gary Hudson                                                                
|                     | Gary Hudson
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)



|                     |                                                                   
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 17, 2008 | /s/ Martin Thorp                                                  
|                     | Martin Thorp
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Robert CARPENTER, Appellant.

No. 64279.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 9, 1995.

Emmett D. Queener, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Christine M. Koeot, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted of second-degree burglary, § 569.170 RSMo.1994, second-degree arson, § 569.050 RSMo.1994, and stealing over $150.00, § 570.030 RSMo.1994. Defendant was sentenced as a prior offender to three seven-year terms of imprisonment, to run consecutively. In his appeal, Defendant asserts the trial court erred in admitting evidence of other bad acts or uncharged crimes and in finding him to be a prior offender as to the count for stealing. He further contends that under § 556.061 RSMo.1994 he is entitled to the removal of his status as a prior offender as to the remaining two counts. We modify in part and affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified.

Defendant asserts the trial court erred in finding him to be a prior offender on the stealing count under § 558.019 RSMo. Supp. 1992, which provides minimum prison terms for repeat offenders of certain class A and B felonies or “dangerous felonies.” Defendant argues, and the state concedes, that § 558.019 does not authorize sentencing as a prior offender one convicted of stealing over $150.00 because the offense is a class C felony and is not a “dangerous felony” as defined in the statute. Rule 30.23 permits this court to finally dispose of a case unless justice requires otherwise. The court’s finding only affects the mandatory minimum time to be served by Defendant and not the sentence imposed. Therefore, we may and do modify the judgment by removing the court’s finding that Defendant is a prior offender on Count II, stealing over $150.00. *See State v. Baker,*850 S.W.2d 944, 948-49 (Mo.App.1993); *State v. Flenoid,*838 S.W.2d 462, 466 (Mo.App.1992). This error does not affect the determination that Defendant is a prior offender with respect to Count I, second-degree burglary and Count III, second-degree arson.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that Defendant’s remaining claims of error have no merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment as modified is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5677 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5677

     To authorize the Federal Communications Commission to process 
applications for spectrum licenses from applicants who were successful 
bidders in an auction before the authority of the Commission to conduct 
                   auctions expired on March 9, 2023.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 22, 2023

  Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To authorize the Federal Communications Commission to process 
applications for spectrum licenses from applicants who were successful 
bidders in an auction before the authority of the Commission to conduct 
                   auctions expired on March 9, 2023.

    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 ``5G Spectrum Authority Licensing 
Enforcement Act'' or the ``5G SALE Act''.

SEC. 2. FCC PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR SPECTRUM LICENSES AWARDED BY 
              AUCTION.

    In the case of any applicant for a license or permit for the use of 
spectrum in the band of frequencies between 2496 megahertz and 2690 
megahertz, inclusive, that the Federal Communications Commission 
selected through a system of competitive bidding conducted under 
section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)) on 
or before March 9, 2023, and to whom the Commission has not granted the 
license or permit as of the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Commission may process the application of the applicant during the 90-
day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Charles R. OTEC, III, et ux., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD, et al., Defendants/Respondents.

No. 64605.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Jan. 3, 1995.

J. Richard MeEaehern, St. Louis, for appellants.

William A. Brasher, Timothy D. Richardson, St. Louis, for respondents.

Before GRIMM, C.J., and CARL R. GAERTNER and CRANE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-driver and his wife sued railroad for personal injuries sustained in a collision with a train at a railroad crossing. A jury found driver 100% negligent. Plaintiffs appeal.

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 judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5729 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5729

     To prohibit the use of Federal funds to establish a Homeland 
          Intelligence Experts Group, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 26, 2023

   Mr. Pfluger (for himself, Mr. Green of Tennessee, Mr. McCaul, Mr. 
  Higgins of Louisiana, and Mr. Ezell) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To prohibit the use of Federal funds to establish a Homeland 
          Intelligence Experts Group, 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. PROHIBITION ON ESTABLISHMENT OF A HOMELAND INTELLIGENCE 
              EXPERTS GROUP.

    (a) In General.--No Federal funds authorized to be appropriated or 
otherwise made available to the Secretary of Homeland Security may be 
made available for--
            (1) the establishment of a Homeland Intelligence Experts 
        Group;
            (2) the establishment of any group, program, initiative, or 
        other similar effort that is equivalent to a Homeland 
        Intelligence Experts Group; or
            (3) the authorization of any activities at the Department 
        of Homeland Security that are equivalent to the activities of 
        the Homeland Intelligence Experts Group.
    (b) Funding Restriction.--Beginning on the date of the enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security may not direct Federal 
funds to be used for--
            (1) the establishment of a Homeland Intelligence Experts 
        Group;
            (2) the establishment of any group, program, initiative, or 
        other similar effort that is equivalent to a Homeland 
        Intelligence Experts Group; or
            (3) the authorization of any activities at the Department 
        of Homeland Security that are equivalent to the activities of 
        the Homeland Intelligence Experts Group.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2


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


In connection with the Annual Report of Beacon Power Corporation (the "Company")
on Form  10-K  for the  period  ending  December  31,  2003 as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, James
M. Spiezio,  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:

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

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



                                    /s/ James M. Spiezio
                                    James M. Spiezio
                                    Chief Financial Officer

                                    March 30, 2004
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SoftBrands, 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 officer 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; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 officer 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 the 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;
andb)
    
    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.
 /s/ GREGG A. WALDON

Gregg A. WaldonSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer