alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 93 (Friday, May 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 22895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11346]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Board of Visitors Meeting

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition University, DoD.

ACTION: Board of Visitors meeting; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On May 8, 2009, 74 FR 21664, the Department of Defense 
published a notice announcing a meeting of the Defense Acquisition 
University (DAU) Board of Visitors (BoV) on May 20, 2009. This notice 
is published to inform participants of the new meeting location. All 
other information remains unchanged.

ADDRESSES: Defense Acquisition University, 9820 Belvoir Road, Fort 
Belvoir, Virginia 22060.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christen Goulding at 703-805-5134.

    Dated: May 12, 2009.
Morgan E. Frazier,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E9-11346 Filed 5-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PER SARBANES-OXLEY ACT (SECTION 906)








I am the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Northern Empire Energy Corp., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”).  I am delivering this certificate in connection with the Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 and filed with the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“Form 10-K”).





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Form 10-K 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 the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:   February 24, 2014/s/ RANIERO CORSINIRaniero CorsiniTitle: Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer
#### Terry OFORI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-7978.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 19, 2006.

Terry Ofori, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Terry Ofori seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ofori has not made the requisite *458showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Ofori’s motions for appointment of counsel and a copy of the trial transcript. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### Patsorida Paul-Austin, Appellant, v Linnette McPherson et al., Respondents.

[974 NYS2d 281]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), entered February 9, 2012, which denied her motion for leave to renew her opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious *611injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident, which had been granted by a decision and order of this Court dated January 31, 2012 *(Paul-Austin v McPherson,*91 AD3d 924 [2012]).

Ordered that the order entered February 9, 2012, is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff had submitted the affirmation of a Dr. Roland Rose, who stated: “I am a physician, duly licensed to practice medicine in the State of New York.” He signed the affirmation: “Dr. Roland Rose, D.C.,” but under his signature the affirmation indicated that he was a medical doctor. In a reply affirmation, the defendants pointed out that Dr. Rose was actually a chiropractor, not a physician, and that his opinion had to be presented in the form of an affidavit *(see generally*CPLR 2106; *Doumanis v Conzo,*265 AD2d 296 [1999]). This Court reversed an order denying the defendants’ motion and granted the motion, holding that Dr. Rose’s affirmation was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact because it was not submitted in the proper form *(see Paul-Austin v McPherson,*91 AD3d 924, 925 [2012]).

The plaintiff moved for leave to renew, submitting a corrected and notarized affidavit identifying Dr. Rose as a chiropractor. The Supreme Court denied the motion.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion for leave to renew. The plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable justification as to why the chiropractor signed an affirmation erroneously identifying himself as a medical doctor, and why that document was unnotarized *(see*CPLR 2221 [e]; *Elder v Elder,*21 AD3d 1055, 1055 [2005]; *Maco v Perdomo,*28 Misc 3d 134[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51354[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; *cf. Brightly v Dong Liu,*77 AD3d 874 [2010]). Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.
From: The District Court of the 18th Judicial District. County of Gallatin.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. FORREST BODE, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-06-342C AMENDED JUDGMENT AND COMMITMENT

On July 12, 2007, the defendant was sentenced to the following: Count I: One hundred (100) years in the Montana State Prison, for the offense of Attempted Sexual Assault, a felony; and Count III: One hundred (100) years in the Montana State Prison, for the offense of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, a felony. Count III shall run concurrently with Count I and with Cause Nos. DC-06-229AXC and DC-07-121C. The Defendant is ineligible for parole for forty (40) years. The Defendant shall successfully complete Phases I and II of the Sex Offender Treatment Program prior to being eligible for parole.

On November 12, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Klara Docherty. The state was not represented.

The Defendant having been duly informed of the amended judgment and commitment, and having waived his right to appear before the undersigned for this pronouncement of sentence, whereupon,

*77IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the sentence shall be affirmed and the terms and conditions shall remain as imposed in the Judgment of July 12, 2007. The parole restriction of forty (40) years shall be removed.

DATED this 10th day of December, 2009.

Hon. Ray Dayton, District Court Judge
##### 



SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.

EXHIBIT 15

To the Board of Directors and
Shareholders ofSears, Roebuck and Co.

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accounts, of the unaudited interim condensed
consolidated financial information of Sears, Roebuck and Co. for the 13 week
period ended March 30, 2002 and March 31, 2001, as indicated in our report
dated May 1, 2002 (October 1, 2002 as to the effect of the restatement
described in Note 7); because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no
opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 2) for the 13-week period ended
March 30, 2002, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
2-64879, 2-80037, 33-18081, 33-23793, 33-41485, 33-43459, 33-45479, 33-55825,
33-58851, 33-64345, 333-08141, and 333-52056 of Sears, Roebuck and Co;
Registration Statement No. 333-92082 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears,
Roebuck Acceptance Corp.; Registration Statement Nos. 33-64775, 333-18591, and
333-43309 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears Roebuck and Co. Deferred
Compensation Plan; Registration Statement No. 333-56272 of Sears, Roebuck and
Co. and the Sears 401(K) Savings Plan (formerly, The Savings and Profit Sharing
Fund of Sears Employees and the Sears 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan); Registration
Statement No. 33-44671 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears DC Corp;
Registration Statement No. 333-72514 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the 2001
Broad-Based Stock Option Plan; and Registration Statement No. 333-87942 of
Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the 2002 Non-Employee Director Stock Plan.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

|                                                
|------------------------------------------------
|/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Deloitte & Touche LLP
|                                                
|                                                
|                                                
|                                                
|                                                
|Chicago, Illinois
October 1, 2002
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 6, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50397 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee
v. LEANDRO RUIZ-ALVAREZ Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:06-CR-513-ALL Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing theJudgment in a Criminal Case, Leandro Ruiz-Alvarez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. See United Statesv. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007). The Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.


  I, Kristen Ann Cronin, certify that:

  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
     required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on
     Form 10-K of ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series
     2007-SL1 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
     whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
     to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
     light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
     misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
     information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
     covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

  4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
     servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews
     conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in
     this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed
     in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled
     their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material
     respects; and

  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
     for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
     assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
     securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
     Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18
     have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
     disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance
     described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
     10-K.

    In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
    information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: GMAC
    Mortgage, LLC as Servicer and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC as Servicer.

    Dated:   March 27, 2008


    /s/ Kristen Ann Cronin
    Signature

    Vice President
    (senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the master
    servicer)
<PAGE>

                                    FORM 6-K
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549



                        Report of Foreign Private Issuer



                        PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                                  March 1, 2005


                         Commission File Number: 0-22346


                                 HOLLINGER INC.
                 (Translation of registrant's name into English)

                                10 TORONTO STREET
                            TORONTO, ONTARIO M5C 2B7
                                     CANADA
                    (Address of principal executive offices)


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports
                       under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

                           Form 20-F [X] Form 40-F [ ]

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
                permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): ____

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
                permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): ____

    Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in
   this Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the
     Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act
                                    of 1934.

                                 Yes [ ] No [X]

If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in
                  connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82-________



<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT LIST

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Exhibit        Description
-------        -----------
<S>            <C>
99.1           Press Release, dated February 28, 2005, regarding Hollinger Inc.
               Independent Directors Seek Guidance From Court.
</TABLE>



<PAGE>

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


Date:  March 1, 2005


                                        HOLLINGER INC.

                                        By /s/ Peter G. White
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Name:   Peter G. White
                                           Title:  Vice President, Operations
                                                   and Secretary
**Exhibit 31(a)**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Alan J. Lacy, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this amendment to quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sears, Roebuck and Co.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this amendment to quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period coveredby this amendment to quarterly report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisamendment to quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this amendmentto quarterly report; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, orcaused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to bedesigned under oursupervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relatingto the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by otherswithin those entities,particularly during the periodin which this amendment toquarterly report is beingprepared;  (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures andpresented in this amendment toquarterly report ourconclusions about theeffectiveness of thedisclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by thisreport based on suchevaluation; and  (c)  Disclosed in this amendment toquarterly report any change inthe registrant’s internalcontrol over financialreporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of anannual report) that hasmaterially affected, or isreasonably likely tomaterially affect, theregistrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a)  All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in thedesign or operation ofinternal control overfinancial reporting which arereasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’sability to record, process,summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involvesmanagement or other employeeswho have a significant role inthe registrant’s internalcontrol over financialreporting.
Date: February 11, 2005
/s/ Alan J. Lacy
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4050 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4050

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 103 East Thompson Street in Thomaston, Georgia, as the ``Sergeant 
   First Class Robert Lee `Bobby' Hollar, Jr. Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. SERGEANT FIRST CLASS ROBERT LEE ``BOBBY'' HOLLAR, JR. POST 
              OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 103 East Thompson Street in Thomaston, Georgia, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Sergeant First Class Robert Lee `Bobby' 
Hollar, Jr. Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sergeant 
First Class Robert Lee `Bobby' Hollar, Jr. Post Office Building''.

            Passed the Senate December 6, 2006.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 4050

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 103 East Thompson Street in Thomaston, Georgia, as the ``Sergeant 
   First Class Robert Lee `Bobby' Hollar, Jr. Post Office Building''.
```
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO andCFO**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350,**

**AsAdopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Shelter Properties II (the "Partnership"), forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven D. Cordes, as theequivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B.Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership,each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of hisknowledge:

 

 

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 

 

 

This certification is furnished with thisReport pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall notbe deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Rounsaville & Brother *v.*Watters.

The requests to charge, so far as they were applicable, were covered by the charge given, which fairly presented for determination by the jury the vital issue involved in the case, it affirmatively appearing that as to the debt upon which the plaintiffs’ judgment was founded, the credit was not extended upon the faith of the property in controversy; and the evidence being otherwise sufficient to warrant the j ury in finding for the claimant, there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to grant a new trial.

July 30, 1894.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Levy and claim. Before Judge Henry. Floyd superior court. September term, 1893.

Nat Harris and C. A. Thornwell, for plaintiffs.

In this case the plaintiffs contended that the defendant in *fi. fa.*paid certain amounts on the purchase money of' the lots levied on; that he fraudulently transferred his stock of goods and his interest in said lots, but continued to manage the goods, and from sales thereof used certain amounts in improving the lots. The jury found the property not subject, and plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial was overruled.
#### Heather Book, Appellant, v Edward Book, Respondent.

Submitted August 3, 2009;

decided October 20, 2009

Reported below, 58 AD3d 781.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.