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 State

          - [Delegation of Authority No. 334]

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Secretary of State, including Section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2651a), I hereby delegate to the Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, to the extent authorized by law, the authority to approve notifications to foreign governments of proposed exports from the United States of hazardous waste, as provided under Section 3017 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6938.

Any act, executive order, regulation, or procedure subject to, or affected by, this delegation shall be deemed to be such act, executive order, regulation, or procedure as amended from time to time.

Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, or the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, and the Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs may at any time exercise any authority or function delegated by this delegation of authority.

                    This delegation of authority shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

September 28, 2010.

Hillary Rodham Clinton,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2010-26380 Filed 10-19-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
_________________________________________ 

 

_________________________________________ 

_________________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 7, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135134 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

In re Adoption of RIO MARCELLA BORGHESE, 

Minor. 

SALLY BORGHESE, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v SC: 135134 

 COA: 274337 

Kent Circuit Court Family 

Division: 06-021909-AM 

MICHIGAN CHILDREN’S INSTITUTE,

Respondent-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 26, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p1204 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 7, 2007 

Clerk
J-A04001-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

MICHELE M. STIPA,

 Appellee

 v.

ANTHONY D. GIAMPAOLO,

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1328 EDA 2019

Appeal from the Order Entered April 29, 2019

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Domestic Relations at No(s): 17-01688

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STRASSBURGER, J.* and COLINS, J.*

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.:

Filed: March 23, 2020

I join the learned Majority’s analysis and holding that there was no 

obligation on the part of the trial court to require the showing of need on 

behalf of Mother for entry of a child support order. Specifically, I dissent as 

to Father’s issue that involves the trial court’s handling of Mother’s other 

household income and the age of Child. The majority concludes that the 

trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined other household 

income and the age of Child did not warrant deviation from the support 

guidelines. Majority at 7-9.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A04001-20

- 2 -

Regarding other household income, Mother resides with her parents. 

According to Mother, her father collects a pension and possibly social 

security, and her mother collects social security benefits as well as income 

from Mother for providing childcare. The definition of income is set forth in 

23 Pa.C.S. § 4302, and specifically states that “pensions,” “social security 

benefits,” and “compensation for services” are to be included. It is clear 

there is other household income present in this case. In addition to the 

income that Mother’s parents receive, the trial court failed to discover and 

consider the amount, if any, Mother’s parents may be contributing towards 

her food and lodging such as the rent or mortgage. See Mooney v. Doutt, 

766 A.2d 1271, 1275 (Pa. Super. 2001) (utilizing the subsidization of a 

Father’s living expenses of rent and food because Father was living with his 

parents as a consideration in determining the amount of child support 

obligation).

Regarding the age of Child, the age of Child warranted a downward 

deviation from the support guidelines because it is undoubtedly clear that a 

two-year-old would require less financial support than a seventeen-yearold.1

____________________________________________

1 “Child expenditure increases as a child matures.” See American Law 

Institute, Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution: Analysis and 

Recommendations § 3.05A, cmt. l. (2002).
J-A04001-20

- 3 -

Accordingly, I would hold that the trial court abused its discretion by 

failing to account fully for the other household income and age of the Child. 

I would remand to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with 

this memorandum.
# Sitemap

## November 20, 2013

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2013
- 11
- November 20, 2013

            - Celebrating Fifteen Years of the International Space Station
            - NASA’s Chandra Helps Confirm Evidence of Jet in Milky Way’s Black Hole
            - Kepler’s Future Expected To Be Discussed At Second Kepler Science Conference
            - LADEE Uses Laser Communications System To Contact ESA Ground Station
            - Congress Grants NOAA Flexibility To Maintain Weather Satellite Programs
            - Rocket, Crew Preparing For Launch To ISS
            - NASA Downgrades Risk Of Asteroid Hit In 2032
            - NASA Looking At New Propulsion Methods To Make Mars Trips More Feasible
            - India Launches Its Mission To Mars
            - NASA’s Chandra Helps Confirm Evidence of Jet in Milky Way’s Black Hole
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. SAMUEL JOHNSON.

May 12, 1987.

This matter having been presented to the Court on defendant’s petition for certification from the Appellate Division’s opinion and judgment of October 21, 1986, and, based upon matters submitted with the petition for certification, it appearing that material facts relating to the admission into evidence in the trial below of the petitioner may be at variance with the facts as presented to the Appellate Division in affirming the conviction of petitioner, said conflicting factual versions relating to whether an incriminating statement of the coindictee Lambert was introduced by the State or by the defense as incorporated in a police report, and it now appearing that material facts may be disputed and the record unsettled, and good cause otherwise appearing;

It is ORDERED that the case is remanded to the Appellate Division to reconsider its opinion, including, particularly, its determination that the admission into evidence of defendant’s statement was error that did not warrant reversal in part because of the admission of Lambert’s statement, with leave to provide for settlement of the record, if necessary.

Jurisdiction is not retained.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6957

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEROY ANTHONY THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (CR-98-111-HNM; CA-03-416-L) Submitted: October 17, 2003 Decided: September 15, 2004 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Anthony Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Clayton White, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, James Clarke Howard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Leroy Anthony Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion for lack of jurisdiction. In civil actions in which the United States is a party, parties are accorded sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to file a notice of appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Panhorst v. United States , 241 F.3d 367, 369-70 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978)). The district court’s order dismissing Thomas’ motion was entered on March 7, 2003. Thomas filed his notice of appeal in this court on June 2, 2003. In it, Thomas stated that the district court did not send him its order disposing of his motion until May 14, 2003. We li berally construe Thomas’ notice of appeal as a motion to extend the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). See Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). We remand this case for the district court to determine whether Thomas has shown excusable neglect or good cause to warrant an extension. SeeFed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. REMANDED
Alex
M. Council


Vice
President


(704)
342-8409 T (704) 342-8450 F


alex.council@pnc.com








PNC
Business Credit





March 24,
2006











Dr. Louis
F. Centofanti


Perma-Fix
Environmental Services, Inc.


1940 NW
67th
Place, Suite A


Gainesville,
FL  32653





Dear
Lou,





You have
informed me of the resignation of Dick Kelecy as CFO of Perma-Fix and have
expressed your concern as to whether this may trigger an event of default under
the loan agreement.  If in fact it does, I would consider that more of
a "technical default" and I would process the necessary approval to have it
waived.  Please keep me informed on the results of your search for a
replacement CFO.





I will be
out of the office the entire week of March 27th and
therefore will contact you the week of April 3rd when I
return.





Should
you have any questions, do not hesitate to call.





Sincerely,





/s/ Alex
M. Council IV





Alex M.
Council


Vice
President










A member of The PNC Financial
Services Group


201 South
Tryon Street  Suite 900  Charlotte  North
Carolina  28202
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 299 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 299

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                           May 2, 2017.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1180) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act 
of 1938 to provide compensatory time for employees in the private sector. All 
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-15 shall be 
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All 
points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on 
any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion 
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce; and (2) 
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2.  On any legislative day during the period from May 5, 2017, through 
May 15, 2017--
     (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered 
as approved; and
    (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned to meet at a date 
and time, within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article I of the 
Constitution, to be announced by the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
    Sec. 3.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the duties of the Chair 
for the duration of the period addressed by section 2 of this resolution as 
though under clause 8(a) of rule I.
    Sec. 4.  It shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of May 4, 
2017, or May 5, 2017, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House 
suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his 
designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the 
designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this section.
    Sec. 5.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a two-thirds vote 
to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented 
to the House is waived with respect to any resolution reported through the 
legislative day of May 5, 2017.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Exhibit 32


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                      SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18
                           OF THE UNITED STATES CODE,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of CTD Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  September  30,  2005 as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, C.E.
Rick  Strattan,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and 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:

(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.

Date:  November 14, 2005


/s/ C.E. Rick Strattan
--------------------------------------------
C. E. RICK STRATTAN
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN BANKS.

January 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**








**Section
      1350 Certification of Chief Financial Officer**









In connection with the quarterly report of Nano-Proprietary, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Douglas P, Baker, the 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:




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 this Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of
      operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in
      the
      report.









Date: 
                October 30, 2007
            /s/ Douglas P.
                Baker
              Douglas
                P. Baker
              Chief
                Financial Officer
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 Perma-Fix Environmental Services, Inc. (“PESI”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), I, Ben Naccarato, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1) The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78m or §78o(d)); and




(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated: May 6, 2011




/s/ Ben NaccaratoBen NaccaratoVice President and Chief Financial Officer





This certification is furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. §1350 subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          15,024
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,056
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,085
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     77,624
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             495
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               476
<LOANS>                                        309,485
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,147
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 430,551
<DEPOSITS>                                     366,374
<SHORT-TERM>                                    19,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,921
<LONG-TERM>                                      5,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,440
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,816
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 430,551
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 11,079
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,496
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   623
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                14,198
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,513
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,853
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,345
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,623
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,916
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,269
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,269
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .98
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
## Ride to the Moon

# Human Landing Systems

NASA’s commercial providers, Blue Origin and SpaceX, are building the human landing systems that will carry Artemis astronauts to the lunar surface and back to lunar orbit for their ride home to Earth aboard Orion. 

Blue Moon Lander

Starship Lander

## Blue Moon Lander

NASA is working with a Blue Origin-led team to deliver astronauts to the lunar surface on Artemis V. The team will perform an uncrewed demonstration mission prior to the crewed Artemis V mission. 

The team consists of Blue Origin’s Blue Moon lander and Lockheed Martin’s Cislunar Transporter as well as:
      - Draper  – guidance software and analysis on the lander; pilot simulator and training system    
      - Boeing  – docking adapter for the integrated lander; engineering design; mission support operations  
      - Astrobotic  – cargo accommodation system; landing sensor maturation; mission operations
      - Honeybee  Robotics – motion control systems and robotics

## Starship Lander

NASA is working with SpaceX to develop its Starship human landing system for use on Artemis III—the mission that will put the next two Americans on the surface of the Moon—and Artemis IV, which meets an extended set of requirements such as docking with Gateway for crew transfer, more mass to the surface, and longer mission durations. SpaceX will perform an uncrewed demonstration mission prior to the crewed Artemis III mission, followed by the Artemis IV mission. 

The Starship HLS leans on SpaceX’s tested Raptor engines and flight heritage of the Falcon and Dragon vehicles, and includes a spacious cabin and two airlocks for astronaut moonwalks.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ARCADIO MALDONADO GARCIA.

November 10, 1986.

Petition for certification denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

CHARLES A. BELLON,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 398 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of February, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.