alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Commerce Economic Development Administration
 AGENCY: Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
 ACTION: Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment. Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341 
                    *et seq.*), the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of these firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm. List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
[12/19/2014 through 12/22/2014]
Firm name
Firm address
Date
                             accepted for 
                             investigation
Product(s)Sunheat International
3724 Arch Avenue, Grand Island, NE 68803
12/22/2014
The firm manufactures electrical heating devices including portable heaters, fireplaces, saunas, and patio heaters.
 Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms. Dated: December 22, 2014. Michael S. DeVillo, Eligibility Examiner.


[FR Doc. 2014-30496 Filed 12-29-14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 25, 2010

0517 

# Order

May 25, 2010

139368

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139368 COA: 283670 Ottawa CC: 06-030248-FH JOHN ARTHUR HARRIS, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 25, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
2

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        3

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        4

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        5

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        6

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        7

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        8

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        9

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        10

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        11

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        12

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        13

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        14

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        15
EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                              OF SWISS MEDICA, INC.
                           PURSUANT TO 18 USC ss. 1350


Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002  (subsection (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) the undersigned
officer of Swiss  Medica,  Inc. (the  "Company")  does hereby  certify,  to such
officer's knowledge, that:

      (c)   The quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September
            30, 2005 of the Company  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
            section 13(a) or 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (d)   Information  contained in the Form 10-QSB  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

Dated: November 13, 2005


By: /s/ BRUCE FAIRBAIRN
------------------------------
Bruce Fairbairn,
Chief Financial Officer
G R E E N P O I N T   M O R T G A G E   F U N D I N G ,   I N C .  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT JPALT 2007-A1 I, Michael Gathright, an authorized officer of GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (the "Servicer"), certify that: 1.A review of the Servicer's activities during the period from and including January 1, 2007 through and including December 31, 2007 (or applicable portion thereof) and of the Servicer's performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision. 2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout such period. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. Date: February 29, 2008 /s/ Michael Gathright Michael Gathright Senior Vice President, Loan Administration
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              18 USC, SECTION 1350,
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the quarterly report of 3Si Holdings, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three month period ended
December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 26, 2007 (the "Report"), I, the undersigned, in
the capacity and on the date indicated below, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C./ Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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

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



Dated: July 26, 2007                   /s/  Frederick J. Slack
                                       Frederick J. Slack, Chief
                                       Executive Officer,
                                       Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
10.1


May 21, 2007


Cornell Capital Partners, L.P.


101 Hudson Street, Suite 3700


Jersey City, NJ 07302


Attention:  Mark Angelo


Dear Mark:


This letter shall
confirm the agreement between Open Energy Corporation (the “Company”) and
Cornell Capital Partners, L.P. (“Cornell”) in connection with the series of
secured convertible debentures (the “Debentures”) issued to Cornell pursuant to
the securities purchase agreement between the Company and Cornell dated March
30, 2006, as amended. The Company and Cornell hereby agree to increase the
ownership cap set forth in Section 3(b)(i) of each of the Debentures from 4.99%
to 9.99%.


This modification
shall take place as of the date first written above and the Company expressly
waives any notice period that otherwise would be required pursuant to the
Debentures to effectuate this increase, provided that Cornell agrees to timely
file all necessary forms with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as a
result of this waiver. Furthermore, the Company agrees to permanently waive the
conversion limitation set forth in Section 3(b)(ii) of each of the Debentures.


Except as
expressly set forth above, all of the terms and conditions of the Debentures
shall continue in full force and effect, and shall not be in any way changed,
modified or superseded.


	
  

  	
  Sincerely,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ David Saltman

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  David Saltman

  
	
   

  	
  President and Chief Executive Officer

  



 


Agreed and Accepted:


Cornell Capital Partners, L.P.


By: Yorkville Advisors, LLC,


Its: Investment Manager


	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Mark A.
  Angelo

  	
   

  
	
  Name:

  	
  Mark A. Angelo

  
	
  Title:

  	
  Managing Member
#### Regal ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James E. TILTON, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,* Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-56823.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.**

Filed Oct. 23, 2006.

As Amended on Denial of Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Jan. 19, 2007.

Regal Robinson, Calipatria, CA, pro se.

Atty Gen Cas Fax, Kevin R. Vienna, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 James E. Tilton is substituted for his predecessor, Jeanne S. Woodford, who was Director of the California Department of Corrections, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

California state prisoner Regal Robinson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pur*772suant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a district court’s ruling on the merits of a habeas corpus petition, *see Sandgathe v. Maass,*314 F.3d 371, 376 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

Robinson contends that the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges violated his constitutional rights, and that the district court erred in finding that he failed to prove purposeful racial discrimination by the prosecution. We disagree. After a de novo review, we conclude that the state trial court’s ruling on *People v. Wheeler,*22 Cal.3d 258, 148 CaLRptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 (Cal.1978), motion was not error. *See Bat-son v. Kentucky,*476 U.S. 79, 96-97, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986); *Williams v. Runnels,*432 F.3d 1102, 1105 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the district court properly denied this claim.

To the extent Robinson raises uncerti-fied issues, we construe his arguments as a motion to expand the Certificate of Ap-pealability, and we deny the motion. *See*9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); *Hiivala v. Wood*195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per cu-riam).

We also deny Robinson’s request for an initial hearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 35(b).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      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 that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
  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/ William H. Kline

William H. Kline
Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1989 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1989

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
   Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National 
    Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism 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 Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
   Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National 
    Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism 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 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
              AND HUMAN SERVICES, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH 
              NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON ALCOHOL ABUSE AND ALCOHOLISM FOR 
              FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Health and 
Human Services, National Institutes of Health National Institute on 
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$525,591,000.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
      32.1





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Sparta Commercial Services, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2008,
      as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified
      (the "Report"), the undersigned, Anthony L. Havens, as Chief Executive Officer
      of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      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.








/s/
      Anthony L. Havens





Anthony
      L. Havens


Chief
      Executive Officer





Date:
      March 24, 2008
#### In the Matter of John Feliciano, Appellant, v Kim Micheli-Hartford, Respondent.

[824 NYS2d 909]

In a child visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), dated March 13, 2006, which, after a hearing, denied his petition to direct that the mother’s visitation be supervised.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father’s contention, he failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances warranting modification of the visitation provisions of the stipulation agreement *(see Matter of Abranko v Vargas,*26 AD3d 490 [2006]; *Matter of Manos v Manos,*282 AD2d 749 [2001]; *Matter of Brocher v Brocher,*213 AD2d 544 [1995]). Furthermore, the Family Court’s determination that it would not be in the child’s best interests to modify the mother’s visitation has a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Matter of Abranko v Vargas, supra; Brocher v Brocher, supra).*

*740The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Goldstein, J.E, Skelos, Lunn and Covello, JJ., concur.
#### Xiao Yuan et al., Respondents, v Li Dan Zhang et al., Appellants.

[871 NYS2d 720]

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract for the purchase of real property dated February 1, 2007, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dorsa, J.), dated April 21, 2008, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action for specific performance.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action for specific performance is granted.

As a general rule, “[t]he specific performance of a contract for the purchase of real estate may be decreed only where it is possible for the defendant to convey the land” *(Saperstein v Mechanics & Farmers Sav. Bank of Albany,*228 NY 257, 260 [1920]). The complaint in this case contains no request for an award of money damages based on the defendants’ alleged breach of the contract dated February 1, 2007 and the plaintiffs never joined the subsequent vendees of the property as additional defendants; those subsequent vendees are the current owners of the property, having taken title from the plaintiffs by virtue of a deed dated June 22, 2007.

The remedy of specific performance is thus an impossible one in the circumstances of this case, where the only named defendants have parted with title to the subject property *(see e.g. Saperstein v Mechanics & Farmers Sav. Bank of Albany,*228 NY 257 [1920]; *2386 Creston Avenue Realty, LLC v M-P-M Mgt. Corp.,*58 AD3d 158 [2008]; *Camperlino & Fatti Bldrs. v Dimovich Constr. Corp.,*175 AD2d 595 [1991]; *Maurer v Albany**724*Sand & Supply Co.,*40 AD2d 883 [1972]; *Spuches v Royal View,*13 AD2d 815 [1961]; 91 NY Jur 2d, Real Property Sales and Exchanges § 257; *cf. Lo Biondo v D’Auria,*45 AD2d 735 [1974]).

Accordingly, the defendants established, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the first cause of action for specific performance. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Skelos, J.E, Dillon, McCarthy and Eng, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sy Best, Appellant.

[825 NYS2d 177]

Appeals by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from two sentences of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Mullings, J.), both imposed September 16, 2003, on the grounds that the sentences are illegal.

Ordered that the sentences are affirmed.

No opinion. Prudenti, EJ., Adams, Goldstein, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

ANTHONY SCOTT,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 21 EAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE LEE MOORE, *

 *

Plaintiff, *

 *

vs. * Civil Action No. 05-00204-BH-B

 *

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, *

Commissioner of * 

Social Security, *

 *

Defendant. *

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portion of this

file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and there having been

no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

dated August 15, 2005 is hereby ADOPTED as the opinion of this

Court. 

Accordingly, for good cause shown and because no answer has

been filed, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion To Remand

(Doc. 12) be and hereby is GRANTED and that this action is

REMANDED to the Social Security Administration pursuant to

sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for the Administrative Law

Judge to: 1) further develop the record with regard to

Plaintiff’s alleged mental impairment; 2) obtain updated

evidence concerning Plaintiff’s mental status, with

psychological testing including, but not limited to, WAIS-III,

Case 2:05-cv-00204-BH-B Document 14 Filed 09/14/05 Page 1 of 2
WRAT-II and MMPI; 3) obtain Plaintiff’s actual school records;

and 4) make clear, consistent findings regarding Plaintiff’s

earnings and substantial gainful activity during the period at

issue. 

Under this remand pursuant to sentence six of Section

405(g), Plaintiff is not a prevailing party for purposes of the

Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. See

Shalala v. Schafer, 509 U.S. at 297-298, 300-302 (1993). 

DONE this 14th day of September, 2005.

 s/ W. B. Hand 

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00204-BH-B Document 14 Filed 09/14/05 Page 2 of 2
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Interest of E.W., Jr., S.W., A.W., M.W., and A.W., Children

No. 06

- 23

- 00057

- CV Appeal from the 62nd District Court of
Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 91221 ).
Memorand um Opinion delivered by Chief
Justice Stevens

, Justice van Cleef and
Justice Rambin participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court
below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note tha t the appellant ha s adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal.
Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 3, 2023 BY ORDER OF THE COURT S COTT E. STEVENS CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk