alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 76897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30196]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910


Standards Improvement Project--Phase III

CFR Correction

    In Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1900 to Sec.  
1910.999, revised as of July 1, 2014, in Sec.  1910.36, on page 151, 
revise the Note to paragraph (b), and on page 152, revise the Note to 
paragraph (f), to read as follows:


Sec.  1910.36  Design and construction requirements for exit routes.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

     Note to paragraph (b) of this section: For assistance in 
determining the number of exit routes necessary for your workplace, 
consult NFPA 101-2009, Life Safety Code, or IFC-2009, International 
Fire Code (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1910.6).

* * * * *
    (f) * * *

     Note to paragraph (f) of this section: Information regarding 
the ``Occupant load'' is located in NFPA 101-2009, Life Safety Code, 
and in IFC-2009, International Fire Code (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  1910.6).

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-30196 Filed 12-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
#### In the Matter of Tamia C., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[963 NYS2d 243]

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Jeanette Ruiz, J.), entered on or about February 27, 2012, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that she committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of assault in the third degree, attempted assault in the third degree and menacing in the third degree, and placed her on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the finding as to assault in the third degree and replacing it with a finding of attempted assault in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Except as indicated, the court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations.

*584In each of the two incidents at issue, appellant’s intent to cause physical injury could be readily inferred from her violent and unprovoked conduct *(see e.g. Matter of Keene J.,*253 AD2d 679 [1st Dept 1998]). In one incident appellant punched the victim in the face, and in the other incident appellant repeatedly stomped on the victim’s head as she lay on the ground.

The evidence also established third-degree menacing regarding the second incident, where appellant stomped on the victim’s head while stating that she was going to “finish that girl,” which the victim interpreted to mean appellant was going to injure her. This established that appellant, by physical menace, intentionally placed the victim in fear of physical injury *(see Matter of Daniel R.,*49 AD3d 266 [1st Dept 2008]).

As the presentment agency concedes, the evidence regarding the first incident only established an attempted assault.

The court properly exercised its discretion when it denied appellant’s request to convert the proceeding to a person in need of supervision proceeding, and instead adjudicated her a juvenile delinquent and placed her on probation. That disposition was appropriate in light of the violent, unprovoked nature of the underlying incidents, appellant’s pattern of aggressive behavior in and out of the home, and her poor school record *(see e.g. Matter of Steven*C., 99 AD3d 570 [1st Dept 2012]).

Concur— Andrias, J.E, Acosta, Freedman, Richter and Gische, JJ.
|   | · | The                Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)                or                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and                    |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|   | · | The                information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                the Company. |

| Date:  May                3, 2007 | /s/  Paul                A.                Farr                                                |
|---------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                        | Paul                A. FarrExecutive                Vice PresidentPPL                Energy Supply, LLC                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-3309 

EDWARD GOODE, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Respondent. 

Stuart A. Kirsch, Assistant General Counsel – Litigation, American Federation of 

Government Employees, of Riverdale, Georgia, argued for petitioner. With him on the 

brief was Mark D. Roth, General Counsel, of Washington, DC. 

Hilliary A. Stern, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for 

respondent. With her on the brief were Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Todd M. 

Hughes, Deputy Director. 

Arbitrator’s Decision
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-3309 

EDWARD GOODE, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Respondent. 

Judgment 

ON APPEAL from the Arbitrator’s Decision 

In CASE NO(S). FMCS No. 070907-60064-3. 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam (RADER, LINN, and PROST, Circuit Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATE:_May 8, 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly, Clerk
----

----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| November      14, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Thomas      J. Meaney                                                                              |   |
|------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                   |   | Thomas      J. MeaneyPresident      (Principal Executive Officerand      Principal  Financial Officer) |   |
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2329 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2329

  To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for the United 
 States-China Economic and Security Review Commission for fiscal year 
                                 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for the United 
 States-China Economic and Security Review Commission for fiscal year 
                                 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR THE UNITED STATES-
              CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION FOR FISCAL 
              YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for the United States-China 
Economic and Security Review Commission for fiscal year 2024 may not 
exceed $3,500,000.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                         516,226
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  788,837
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,418,879
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,788,284
<PP&E>                                       7,769,170
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,992,763
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,247,912
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,322,099
<BONDS>                                        505,234
<COMMON>                                        46,959
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     15,010
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,733,319
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,247,912
<SALES>                                      2,236,335
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,236,335
<CGS>                                        1,584,905
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,584,905
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               669,606
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,018
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,476)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,476)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 12.1**

 

**HCC INDUSTRIES INC.**

**COMPUTATION OF RATIOOF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**

**(in thousands)**

**(unaudited)**

 

 
|                                                                     |   | **For the Six Months Ended** |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                     |   | **September 28,  2002**      |   | **September 29,  2001** |   |
| Earnings:                                                                |   |                         |   |   |   |
|                                                                     |   |                         |   |   |   |
| Earnings (loss) before taxes And cumulative  effect of accounting change |   | $                            | (4,276 | ) | $ | 3,817 |   |
|                                                                     |   |                         |   |   |   |
| Add:   Fixed Charges*                                               |   | 4,821                        |   | 4,929 |   |
|                                                                     |   |                         |   |   |   |
|                                                                     |   | $                            | 545    |   | $ | 8,746 |   |

 

----

* Fixed Charges:

 
| Interest expense                   |   | $      | 4,821  |   | $      | 4,929 |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|-------|--------|
|                               |   | $      | 4,821  |   | $      | 4,929 |   |
|                               |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges |   | — | (1)    | 1.8    |   |

 

----

(1)          There was a deficiency of earnings to fixedcharges for the six months ended September 28, 2002 of $4,276.

 

 

 

*  The ratios of earnings to fixed charges werecomputed by dividing earnings by fixed charges.  For this purpose, “earnings” consist of earnings before taxes andextraordinary item plus fixed charges and “fixed charges” consist of interestexpense and amortization of debt issuance costs.

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nicholas G. Kennedy, Appellant.

[969 NYS2d 923]

— Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated January 19, 2010 *(People v Kennedy,*69 AD3d 881 [2010]), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered April 25, 2008.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Rivera, JE, Dickerson, Hall and Lott, JJ, concur.
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

I, James N. Fairbairn,  Chief Financial Officer of Quincy Energy Corp. (the Company), hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
1. The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB, of the Company for the year ended April, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Annual Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
2. The information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:

March ●,20,2006



/s/ James N. Fairbairn

James N. Fairbairn

Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of MATERIALISE NV (the Company) on Form 20-F/A for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Wilfried Vancraen, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of
the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. 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.
|---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: June 26, 2018



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Wilfried Vancraen  
|    |  | Wilfried Vancraen      
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward J. Sheppard, Appellant.

[971 NYS2d 479]

— Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), imposed June 28, 2012, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Eng, EJ., Mastro, Dickerson, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MIKE and MICHELLE MILLER, )

 )

Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

vs. ) CA 09-0067-KD-C

 )

SOUTHEAST SUPPLY HEADER, )

LLC, )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed

relevant to the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of

the recommendation to which objection is made, the recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and dated August 19,

2009, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court with the following

amendment: Footnote #2 is deleted. 

DONE this 31st day of December, 2009.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

 KRISTI K. DuBOSE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00067-KD-C Document 32 Filed 01/04/10 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Axesstel, Inc. (the Company), that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operation of the Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements included in such report.



Dated: February 3, 2005

/S/    MIKE HP
KWONMike HP Kwon, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)




Dated: February 3, 2005



/S/    DAVID L.
MORASHDavid L. Morash, President, Chief Operating Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer)
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 08-2110

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

NELIZA FIGUEROA-CARTAGENA,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on July 16, 2010, is amended

as follows:

On page 41, line 14 of footnote 27: replace "Maj. Op. at 9

n.7." with "Maj. Op. at 9 n.9."
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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 11, 2018

Order 

Clerk

December 10, 2018

158818(9)

DARRYL MCGORE,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

SC: 158818

v COA: 345498

Baraga CC: 18-006846-CZ

BARAGA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 

WARDEN,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it is 

DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable 

for filing fees.

Appellant is not required to pay an initial partial fee. However, for the appeal to 

continue, within 21 days of the date of this order, appellant shall submit a copy of this order 

and refile the copy of the pleadings returned with this order as acknowledgement of his 

responsibility to pay the $375.00 filing fee. Failure to do so shall result in the appeal being 

administratively dismissed.

If appellant timely complies with this order, monthly payments shall be made to the 

Department of Corrections in the amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to appellant’s 

account until the payments equal the balance due of $375.00. That amount shall then be 

remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8), appellant shall not file a new civil action or appeal 

in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to appellant and return 

a copy of appellant’s pleadings with this order.
#### Alberto Ayala, Respondent, v Jasons Towing, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[963 NYS2d 149]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jaeger, J.), dated May 24, 2012, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is denied.

This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred at the intersection of Colonial Street and Northern Parkway in Uniondale. The traffic that was proceeding in the same direction as the plaintiffs vehicle was not controlled by any traffic control device, while the traffic that was proceeding in the same direction as the defendants’ vehicle was controlled by a stop sign. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Supreme Court granted the motion.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability *(see Stern v Amboy Bus Co., Inc.,*102 AD3d 763 [2013]; *Anastasi v Terio,*84 AD3d 992, 992 [2011]; *see also Graeber-Nagel v Naranjan,*101 AD3d 1078 [2012]; *Myles v Blain,*81 AD3d 798 [2011]; *Ostrander v Sannicandro,*80 AD3d 587, 587 [2011]; *Cox v Nunez,*23 AD3d 427, 427 [2005]). The plaintiff “ha[d] the burden of establishing freedom from comparative negligence as a matter of law” *(Pollack v Margolin,*84 AD3d 1341, 1342 [2011]), since there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident *(see Allen v Echols,*88 AD3d 926, 926 [2011]; *Bonilla v Calabria,*80 AD3d 720, 720 [2011]; *Kim v Acosta,*72 AD3d 648, 648 [2010]; *Lopez v Reyes-Flores,*52 AD3d 785, 786 [2008]). Since the only statement in the plaintiffs affidavit submitted in support of his motion concerning how the accident occurred was that the defendants’ vehicle “failed to stop” at the subject stop sign, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that he was free from comparative fault with respect to the happening of the accident *(see Stern v Amboy Bus Co., Inc.,*102 AD3d 763 [2013]; *see also Graeber-Nagel v Naranjan,*101 AD3d 1078 [2012]; *Simmons v Canady,*95 AD3d 1201, 1202 [2012]; *Steiner v Dincesen,*95 AD3d 877, 877 [2012]).

*690Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability regardless of the sufficiency of the defendants’ opposition papers *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendants’ remaining contention.

Mastro, J.E, Austin, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.