alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2142

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2004

Referred to the Committee on Resources 

AN ACT

To authorize appropriations for the New Jersey Coastal 

Heritage Trail Route, 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

S 2142 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. NEW JERSEY COASTAL HERITAGE TRAIL 

2 ROUTE. 

3 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

4 6 of Public Law 100–515 (16 U.S.C. 1244 note) is 

5 amended—

6 (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking 

7 ‘‘$4,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$8,000,000’’; and 

8 (2) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘10’’ and in9 serting ‘‘15’’. 

10 (b) GRANTS.—Public Law 100–515 (16 U.S.C. 1244 

11 note) is amended—

12 (1) in section 4, by inserting ‘‘and, subject to 

13 the availability of appropriations, grants for,’’ after 

14 ‘‘technical assistance in’’; and 

15 (2) in section 6(b)(2) by inserting ‘‘and grants’’ 

16 after ‘‘technical assistance’’. 

17 (c) STRATEGIC PLAN.—Public Law 100–515 (16 

18 U.S.C. 1244 note) is amended by adding at the end the 

19 following: 

20 ‘‘SEC. 8. STRATEGIC PLAN. 

21 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 4 years after the 

22 date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall 

23 prepare a strategic plan for the route. 

24 ‘‘(b) CONTENTS.—The strategic plan prepared under 

25 subsection (a) shall describe—
3

S 2142 RFH 

1 ‘‘(1) opportunities to increase participation by 

2 national and local private and public interests in the 

3 planning, development, and administration of the 

4 route; and 

5 ‘‘(2) organizational options for sustaining the 

6 route.’’.

Passed the Senate October 10, 2004. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of
Principal Executive OfficerPursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

I,
Edward J. Quilty, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Derma Sciences, Inc.,
hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September
30, 2003 of Derma Sciences, Inc. (the Form 10-QSB) upon my best knowledge and
belief 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 the Form 10-QSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Derma Sciences, Inc.

|Dated:  November 13, 2003 | /s/ Edward J. QuiltyEdward J. QuiltyChairman, President and Chief Executive
     Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
|------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 11, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JOHN J. MCCARTHY, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 10-1281

(D.C. No. 1:10-CV-01363-BNB)

ORDER

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. R.

3.3(B) and 42.1.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1281 Document: 01018475684 Date Filed: 08/11/2010 Page: 1
<PAGE>




                                                                Exhibit 32.2

              Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to
                 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Laurel Capital Group, Inc.

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Laurel Capital Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John A.
Howard, Jr., Senior Vice President 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 results of operations of the Company
     as of and for the period covered by the Report.



/s/ John A. Howard, Jr.
-------------------------
John A. Howard, Jr.
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2004
#### State of Indiana *v.*Hoyt Stone.

[No. 1-1173A204.

Filed May 28, 1974.]

*227
      *Theodore L. Sendak,*Attorney General, *Robert E. Dwyer,*Deputy Attorney General, for appellant.

*Arthur Griffith,*of Evansville, for appellee.

Robertson, P.J.

The plaintiff-appellant (State) is appealing from a directed verdict acquitting the defendant-appellee (Stone) of professional gambling.

The evidence reveals that Fields, a State Police Officer acting undercover, conducted an investigation of professional gambling in Vanderburgh County during April and May, 1972. As a part of that investigation Fields and an informant went to Stone’s restaurant where they had a few drinks. One week later the pair returned to meet a man who was going to get them into a poker game located in a back room of the restaurant. When the three entered the room they were introduced to several people including Stone. Stone offered them free drinks. Subsequently they all bought chips from the dealer and commenced the game. The dealer took some chips from each pot and placed them in a cigar box. A new dealer came in several hours later with the former dealer leaving without taking or accounting for any chips from the cigar box. Fields decided to leave about 1:00 A.M. Stone counted Fields’ chips, as did the dealer, then the dealer paid Fields $82. There was testimony that Stone owned the restaurant where the game took place.

At the conclusion of the State’s case Stone moved for a mandatory instruction finding Stone not guilty. The motion was predicated on a lack of evidence showing Stone had accepted a fixed share of the poker game stakes. This is an essential element of the offense of professional gambling as *228defined in IC 1971, 35-25-1-2, Ind. Ann. Stat. § 10-2330 (Burns Supp. 1973). Stone’s motion was granted.

The sole issue is whether the trial court’s action was contrary to law. For the reasons specified hereafter we are of the opinion that the trial court erred.

The applicable standard of review is:

“A directed verdict of acquittal can only be given where there is a total lack of evidence on some essential issue, or where there is no conflict in the evidence and it is susceptible of but one inference, and that inference is in favor of the accused. (Citing authorities)” *State*v. *Cox*(1973), 156 Ind. App. 548, 297 N.E.2d 920 at 923. *See also: State*v. *Overmyer*(1973), 155 Ind. App. 689, 294 N.E.2d 172.

Recognizing that professional gambling may be proven by circumstantial evidence *(Walker*v. *State*[1973], 155 Ind. App. 404, 293 N.E.2d 35) we believe that testimony showing that Stone owned the premises, that Stone provided free drinks for the players, that Stone was present for the entire game, that Stone counted Fields’ chips, and that a share of each pot was collected by the dealers but not kept by them, supports an inference that the game was for Stone’s personal gain or profit. We are of the opinion that the foregoing evidence was sufficient to make a prima facie case on the questioned essential element.

Appeal sustained.

Lowdermilk and Lybrook, JJ., concur.

Note. — Reported at 311 N.E.2d 446.
Exhibit 32.2 

 

**Certification of Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Books-A-Million, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to the best of such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i)         the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act        of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

| Dated: December 8, 2009 |
|-------------------------|

 

| /s/ Douglas G. Markham                                    |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|
| Douglas G. Markham                                        |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer |
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 68352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27960]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-1893-000]


Salmon Falls Wind Park, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

October 28, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Salmon Falls Wind Park, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is November 18, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance 
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6b2d2e392824050702050e381e1b1b04191f2b0d0e1908450c041d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="084e4d5a4b47666461666d5b7d7878677a7c486e6d7a6b266f677e">[email protected]</span></a>. 
or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27960 Filed 11-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 15,197.

#### Snyder, Mayor, et al. *v.*The State, ex rel. Fleming.

Assignment on *Ebbobs.*— Names *of Parties Must be Given in Full.*— The assignment of errors must contain the names of the parties to the cause in full. The assignment of errors is the appellant’s complaint, and the only parties before the Supreme Court, or over whom it acquires jurisdiction, are those whose names appear therein.

From the Jay Circuit Court.

*W. H. Williamson, T. Bosworth*and *F. H. Snyder,*for appellants.

*D. T. Taylor, R. H. Hartford, J. B. Jaqua*and *J. A. Jaqua,*for appellee.

Mitchell, J.

William S. Fleming, as relator, instituted a proceeding in the Jay Circuit Court against the mayor and common council of the city of Portland, to compel that body by mandate to accept the proposal of,, and award the contract for, a certain street improvement to Judson A. Jaqua, who, it is alleged, submitted the lowest and best bid for the work in pursuance of notice duly given. The court overruled a demurrer to the complaint, and the defendants refusing to plead, judgment was given accordingly. From' this judgment an appeal was taken, which appellee moves to dismiss.

The sixth rule of this court requires that “ the assignment of errors shall contain the full names of the parties.” In the assignment of errors the parties are thus designated: “State of Indiana, on relation of William S. Fleming, Appellee, *vs.*Frank H. Snyder, Mayor, *et al.”*

This is in total disregard of the rule above referred to, and of the many decisions made in the enforcement of it. The assignment of errors is the appellant’s complaint, and the only parties before this court, or over whom it acquires jurisdiction, are those whose names appear therein. *Thoma*v. *336
      *State,*86 Ind. 182, and cases cited ; *Bacon*v. *Withrow,*110 Ind.*94; Calvert*v. *State,*91 Ind. 473.

Filed June 18, 1890.

The motion to dismiss must be sustained. Appeal dismissed.
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson Building NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
May 26, 2022

Reply to Attn of: General Law Practice Group
TO: Distribution.
FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA employees at the Maryland
Space Business Roundtable (MSBR) STEM Gala on June 10, 2022

On June 10, 2022, the Maryland Space Business Roundtable (MSBR), a nonprofit
organization under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, will host a reception at the
Martin’s Crosswinds in Greenbelt, MD, starting at 6:00 p.m. The guest speaker is Dr. Karen
St. Germain, Director, Earth Science Division, Science Mission Directorate, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. The MSBR will be presenting an award to a local
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) teacher.

Approximately 250 people have been invited to attend. Attendees will have a diversity of
views or interests and will include representatives from the legislative branch, state and local
government officials, representatives from industry, employees of Federal agencies,
academia, media and members of the public. The estimated cost of the event, including all
food and beverages, is $85 per person. MSBR is in control of the organizing, planning and
invitations for this event. Attendance at this event will allow NASA attendees to exchange
information regarding various NASA programs. I find that the event meets the requirements
of a “widely attended gathering” as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g)(2).

I further determine that there is an Agency interest in having NASA personnel attend the
event because it will provide an opportunity for the invited persons to exchange ideas and
views pertaining to NASA’s policies, programs and operations. NASA employees, including
NASA employees in non-career positions who are required to sign the ethics pledge under
Executive Order 13989, who do not have a significant role in a matter affecting the interests
of the sponsor may accept an invitation for free attendance to the event. In those
circumstances, I find that the Agency’s interest in attendance outweighs any concern that the
individual may be, or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the performance of their
duties.

However, NASA employees who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting the
interests of the MSBR, such as procurement duties, program management, or negotiating or
administering a Space Act Agreement, should seek a separate determination from their local
ethics counselor as to whether they may accept the invitation.


There will be fundraising in the form of a silent auction and a raffle the evening of the event.
NASA attendees are reminded that participation in these fundraising events is strictly personal
and voluntary. Attendees are also reminded to exercise any COVID-19 precautions
appropriate to their individual situation.

Zap

U

Z

y i
Adam F. Greenstone
#### M'Kinzie *v.*Reneau.

Suit commenced by *A.*before a justice of the peace, and taken by appeal to the Circuit Court. *Held,*that, on the trial on appeal, the defendant might prove admissions which had been made by the plaintiff as a witness in a previous suit in the Circuit Court brought by one *B.*against the defendant.

APPEAL from the *Harrison*Circuit Court.

Perkins, J.

This was an action of assumpsit originally instituted before a justice of the peace to recover the value of certain work and laboui’. Judgment before the justice for the plaintiff for a fraction over 28 dollars, and an appeal taken to the Circuit Court. Judgment in that Court for the plaintiff for 30 dollars.

On the trial in the Circuit Court, the defendant, *M‘Kinzie,*“ offered to prove by a witness on the stand that the plaintiff, *David Reneau,*on the trial of a suit in that Court at its previous term between one *Fleming Reneau*and said *M‘Kinzie,*testified that the labour for wjúch this suit was brought, was done by him for said *Fleming Reneau,*and not for himself. *412The defendant also offered to accompany such proof with the record of the suit in which the testimony proposed to be proved was given; but the Court refused to permit the proof to be made.” To this ruling of the Court an exception was taken, and it presents the only point for our' consideration.

*W. A. Porter,*for the appellant.

*R. Crawford,*for the appellee.

This evidence appears to have been excluded on the ground that *David Reneau,*the plaintiff in the suit, whose admissions were sought to be proved, was himself a competent witness; and the case of *Carter*v. *Buckner,*3 Blackf. 314, is relied upon as supporting the decision. ’

It is true that in some actions commenced before a justice of the peace, either party may by statute, under certain circumstances, at the election of the opposite party, be made a witness; but only at the election of the opposite party. It is not true that the statute makes the parties in these cases witnesses generally and at all events. We may say further, that when a party has once elected, on a trial before a justice of the peace, to make his opponent a witness under the statute, we think it fit and proper that he should be bound by that election on a trial of the same cause on appeal in the Circuit Court, and should be there compelled again to call him, if wishing to have the benefit of his testimony, in place of proving his statements made as a witness before the justice; and that such must be his course, seems to be all that is decided in *Carter*v. *Buckner, supra.*The rule established by that case does not embrace the present. It was not on the trial of this cause before the justice that the admissions sought to be proved were made. *David Reneau*was not even a party to the suit in which they were made, and we know of no rule of law declaring those admissions incompetent to go to the jury as evidence. The weight to which they should be entitled is for the jury to determine.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
Exhibit 13.1

 

**CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F of CryptoLogic Limited (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certifies solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his 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.

 

| Date: | March 30, 2010 | /s/ Brian Hadfield____________________________ |
|-------|----------------|------------------------------------------------|

Brian Hadfield

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

*This certification is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.*

 

 

----
Humanoid Robots

A NEW CO-DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY

Reference No: NNJ14ZBH017L

Potential Commercial Applications: chemical, medical and industrial robotics, logistics 

and distribution, biological research, emergency operations (first responders, rescue, and 

police), disaster recovery operations, Department of Defense (DoD), hazardous 

environments, and others

Keywords: humanoid interfaces, mobility and manipulation, sensor integration, 

structures, artificial vision systems, object recognition and detection, control algorithms, 

power systems, control systems, methods and algorithms, hardware for robotics systems, 

robo-glove, humanoid robotic systems, communication systems

Purpose:

NASA JSC seeks parties interested in co-developing technology associated with

humanoid robots for earth applications such as hazardous environments where humans 

operate at severe risk and tele-medicine.

The primary technical challenges include humanoid interfaces, mobility and 

manipulation, structures, artificial vision, object recognition/detection, and power 

systems.

These humanoid robots and associated technologies can be used in hazardous and remote 

environments here on earth including applications in oil and gas, fire and rescue, post 

disaster recovery, and combat operations. An example application is to develop the robot 

glove for tele-medicine application.

Technology:

NASA JSC is and has been the leader in space-based humanoid robots for years and 

seeks to leverage this position to advance humanoid robotics for earth and in-space 

operations including lunar and planetary operations. These advanced humanoids must 

operate unaccompanied during periods of unmanned activity. The humanoids must 

traverse unimproved, natural surfaces with limited communication to an operator, who 

may be local or remote. 

For more information about NASA JSC Robotics, please review our Robotics Fact Sheet.

R&D Status:

NASA JSC has been the leader in space-based humanoid robots for several years and 

holds patents on Robonaut 2.

Intellectual Property (IP):

Multiple individual technologies associated with robotics are currently available for codevelopment and licensing. Visit Robonaut 2 web page and click on Licensing 

Opportunities. 

This co-development project may produce new IP that could be jointly owned by NASA 

and the partner or may become the property of the partner.