alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 122 (Friday, June 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 30599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15074]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of 
Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial 
Research Special Emphasis Panel. Review RFA-OD-09-004 Research and 
Research Infrastructure Grand Opportunities (RC2).
    Date: July 15, 2009.
    Time: 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Mary Kelly, Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, National Inst of Dental & Craniofacial 
Research, NIH 6701 Democracy Blvd, room 672, MSC 4878, Bethesda, MD 
20892-4878. 301-594-4809. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9af7fbe8e3c5f1fff6f6e3daf4f3f2b4fdf5ec"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="452824373c1a2e2029293c052b2c2d6b222a33">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial 
Research Special Emphasis Panel. Review RFA-OD-09-004 Research and 
Research Infrastructure Grand Opportunities (RC2).
    Date: July 15, 2009.
    Time: 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Mary Kelly, Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, National Inst of Dental & Craniofacial 
Research, NIH 6701 Democracy Blvd, room 672, MSC 4878, Bethesda, MD 
20892-4878. 301-594-4809. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#402d2132391f2b252c2c39002e29286e272f36"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="84e9e5f6fddbefe1e8e8fdc4eaedecaae3ebf2">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral 
Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 18, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-15074 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Case 2:11-cv-00296-WJM-MF Document 73 Filed 06/04/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 1237
Case 2:11-cv-00296-WJM-MF Document 73 Filed 06/04/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 1238
Case 2:11-cv-00296-WJM-MF Document 73 Filed 06/04/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 1239
Case 2:11-cv-00296-WJM-MF Document 73 Filed 06/04/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 1240
Case 2:11-cv-00296-WJM-MF Document 73 Filed 06/04/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 1241
Case 2:11-cv-00296-WJM-MF Document 73 Filed 06/04/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 1242
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 15, 2015

No. 04-15-00005-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF JACK HIROMI IKENAGA SR.,

From the Probate Court No 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-PC-4330

Honorable Polly Jackson Spencer, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellees’ brief is due on July 24, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b). On July 14, 2015, 

Appellees Jack Ikenaga, Jr., William D. Bailey, Temporary Administrator of the Estate of Jack 

Ikenaga Sr., Nancy Sumners, Christine Ikenaga, Patrick Gasiorowski, and Eric J. Goodman filed 

an unopposed first motion for a forty-five day extension of time to file their brief until September 

8, 2015.

Appellees’ motion is GRANTED. Appellees must file their brief with this court by 

September 8, 2015.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 15th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Eugene Timothy Duckworth et al., Appellants, v Ning Fun Chiu, Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 147]

In an action pursuant to RFAPL article 15, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs have a prescriptive easement over property owned by the defendant, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beldock, J.H.O.), entered February 17, 2005, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, dismissed the complaint and declared that the defendant is the sole owner of the subject property, free and clear of any claims or encumbrances by the plaintiffs.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“An easement by prescription is demonstrated by proof of the adverse, open and notorious, continuous and uninterrupted [use of the property] for the prescriptive period. Generally, where an easement has been shown by clear and convincing evidence to be open, notorious, continuous, and undisputed, it is presumed that the use was hostile, and the burden shifts to the opponent of the allegedly prescriptive easement to show that the use was permissive” *(J.C. Tarr, Q.P.R.T. v Delsener,*19 AD3d 548, 550 [2005] [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Frumkin v Chemtop,*251 AD2d 449 [1998]; *Boumis v Caetano,*140 AD2d 401, 402 [1988]). Here, even assuming the plaintiffs established that their use of the three-foot-wide concrete side yard located on the defendant’s property and adjacent to their concrete driveway was open, notorious, continuous, and *584undisputed, the defendant presented ample evidence from which the trier of fact could conclude, as it did, that, during most, if not all, of the alleged prescriptive period, the plaintiffs’ use of the purported easement was not hostile but was permitted as a matter of neighborly accommodation *(see Allen v Mastrianni, 2*AD3d 1023 [2003]; *McNeill v Shutts,*258 AD2d 695, 696 [1999]; *Frumkin v Chemtop, supra*at 449-450; *2239 Hylan Blvd. Corp. v Saccheri,*188 AD2d 524, 526 [1992]; *Boumis v Caetano, supra-, Susquehanna Realty Corp. v Barth,*108 AD2d 909, 909-910 [1985]). Under these circumstances, we find no basis to disturb the Supreme Court’s findings.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.E, Spolzino, Fisher and Lunn, JJ., concur.
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 6D2 3

- 536 Lower Tribunal No. 19

- CA

- 7281

_____________________________ D OUGLAS H ANNAH , Appellant,

v. M AL K H OLDINGS , LLC , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County

.

Alane Laboda , Judge. February 23, 2024
PER CURIAM

. Douglas Hannah appeals a final judgment as t o attorneys’ fees and cos ts in favor of Malk Holdings, LLC

. 1 The parties agree that we must revers e and should contemporaneously is sue the mandate here because we reversed the underlying civil theft judgment in Hannah v. Malk Holdings, LLC , 3 68 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. 6th DCA

1 This case was transferred from the Second District Court of Appeal to this Court on January 1, 2023

.2

2023 ). Th erefore, we reverse the final judgment and direct the Clerk of this Court

to contemporaneously issue the mandate

. R EVERSED; MANDATE TO ISSUE CONTEMPORANEOUSLY

. TRAVER, C.J. , and WHITE and MIZE , J J., concur.
Christopher D. Donovan , of Donovan Appellate Law , P L LC , Bonita Springs , for Appellant

. Jonathan B. Sba r , Andrea K. Holder , and Jodi L. Corrigan, of Rocke, McLean & Sbar, P.A. , Tampa , for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN ITS ANNUAL REPORT ON
FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          69,761
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  541,308<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                    26,019<F2>
<INVENTORY>                                     55,348
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               697,245
<PP&E>                                       1,891,870
<DEPRECIATION>                                 643,085
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,525,082
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          379,030
<BONDS>                                      1,106,256
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,443
<OTHER-SE>                                     850,652
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,525,082
<SALES>                                      3,267,189
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,281,028
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,958,942
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               105,468
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F3>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              91,111
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                125,507
<INCOME-TAX>                                    73,481
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             52,026
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,726)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    50,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .48
<FN>
<F1>Excludes $42,257 of long-term notes receivable.
<F2>Excludes $4,951 of allowance for long-term notes receivable.
<F3>Included in Total costs and expenses line.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Case 2:10-cv-06566-SDW-MCA Document 15 Filed 03/29/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 164
EXHIBIT 32.1

Section 1350 Certifications

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Dollarama Group L.P. (the Company) for the fiscal quarter
ending August 5, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the report), we, Larry Rossy and Robert Coallier, certify that to our knowledge:

1. the report complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange of 1934, as amended; 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: December 14, 2007



/s/ Larry RossyLarry RossyChief Executive Officer/s/ Robert CoallierRobert CoallierChief Financial Officer
#### Joseph Mazza, Jr., et al., Respondents, v Theresa Manzella, Appellant.

[854 NYS2d 424]

*610The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting proof that the infant plaintiff, who was riding a motorized bicycle, exited a driveway and collided into the defendant’s motor vehicle in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1143 and 1173 *(see Yasinosky v Lenio,*28 AD3d 652, 653 [2006]; *Lallemand v Cook,*23 AD3d 533 [2005]; *Trzepacz v Jara,*11 AD3d 531 [2004]; *Ferrara v Castro,*283 AD2d 392 [2001]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The fact that the infant plaintiff did not see the defendant’s approaching car does not excuse the infant plaintiffs conduct *(see Ferrara v Castro,*283 AD2d at 393; *Bolta v Lohan,*242 AD2d 356 [1997]). Furthermore, the infant plaintiffs affidavit failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the defendant’s alleged failure to take evasive action *(see McNamara v Fishkowitz,*18 AD3d 721, 722 [2005]; *Meliarenne v Prisco,*9 AD3d 353, 354 [2004]; *Lupowitz v Fogarty,*295 AD2d 576 [2002]). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted. Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Dillon and Balkin, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT 21.1

                             NU-KOTE HOLDING, INC.
                              AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES
                              --------------------


Nu-kote Holding, Inc.                                         Delaware
Nu-kote Imperial, Inc. (1)                                    Delaware
Nu-kote International, Inc. (1)                               Delaware
Nu-kote Imaging International, Inc. (2)                       Delaware
Nu-kote Latin America, Inc. (2)                               Delaware
International Communication Materials, Inc. (2)               Pennsylvania
Future Graphics, Inc. (2)                                     California
Nu-kote de Mexico, S.A. de CV (5)                             Mexico
Interfas SA (3)                                               France
Interfas Holding, SA (2)                                      France
Nu-kote International Holding, Limited (2)(6)                 England
Nu-kote International Limited (4)(6)                          England
Nu-kote Wyncliffe, Limited (4)(6)                             England
Virokote, Inc. (2)                                            Delaware
Nu-kote Quality Imaging GmbH (2)(6)                           Germany
Greif-Werke GmbH (2)(6)                                       Germany
Pelikan Scotland Ltd (2)(6)                                   England
Pelikan Productions AG (2)(6)                                 Switzerland
-----------------------------

(1) 100% owned by Nu-kote Holding, Inc.
(2) 100% owned by Nu-kote International, Inc.
(3) 100% owned by Interfas Holding S.A.
(4) 100% owned by Nu-kote International Holding Limited
(5) 65% owned by Nu-kote International, Inc. and 35% owned by Nu-kote Latin
    America, Inc.
(6) Entities were sold on September 30, 1999.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: THE BARNES FOUNDATION

PETITION OF: RICHARD RALPH 

FEUDALE

:

:

:

:

:

No. 498 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of March, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Current Use Case #1
Please tell us about one example of how you currently use QCEW
data.

Use case title:

Employment data required for allocation of Local Gc

Briefly describe the use case:
Please include a link to any publicly available data or

estimates.

MN State statute 477A.011, Subd 34 and 42, =
requires QCEW employment data for cities to
calculate jobs per capita that is a component in

Who is the customer for this use case?
Examples: governor's office, state legislative or executive

groups, economic development organization, me.

Minnesota’s Department of Revenue

What kind of QCEW data are used?

© Confidential QCEW microdata

@ Publicly available QCEW tables

Are the data or estimates produced for
this use case made available to non-BLS
agents?

g Yes

O No

O Don't know


How frequently do you produce the data
or estimates for this use case?

O Weekly

© Monthly

© Quarterly

@ Annually
© Ad hoc basis

What are the minimum data
requirements for this use case?

Please indicate the finest level of detail needed in each

category.

Format
Gg Tables
O Microdata

© Other (please specify)

Industry

@ Total private
© 2digit NAICS
© 3digit NAICS

© 4 digit NaIcs
O Sdigit NAICS
O 6digit NAICS


Geography

Select all that apply
{_] National {_] Census tract
(J state {_} Census block

Oo Metropolitan statistical Oj Zip code

area (MSA)
(MSA) O Local Workforce
(J county Development Areas
City Oj Central business districts
Township {_} Arbitrary areas defined by
latitude and longitude
Ownership

g All ownership types together

O Broken down by ownership type (e.g., private, non-profit)

How important is this use case?
© Somewhat important

© Very important

© Critically important

@ Required by statute

If there are any additional details that
would help us to understand the data
requirements for this use case, please
leave them here:
# Quality Reporting Service Center

- Track Laborer 
- Machinist 
- Yard Clerk 
- Railroad Job Vacancies Reported to the RRB 
- Prinicipal Investigator 
- Roadmaster 
- Conductor/Engineer 
- Trainmaster 
- Chapter 08: Filing Instructions for Form BA-15, Report of Stock Options and Other Payments 
- Assistant VP of Signals & Communication
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 818 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 818

               Expressing support for a balanced budget.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 30, 2020

  Mr. Budd (for himself, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Rouzer, Mr. Murphy of North 
 Carolina, Mr. Bishop of North Carolina, and Mr. Hudson) submitted the 
 following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
                                 Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
               Expressing support for a balanced budget.

Whereas the Federal Government's fiscal trajectory is highly unsustainable and 
        risks triggering a United States financial crisis that could undermine 
        the prosperity of the American people;
Whereas the majority of the American people want to see Congress take action to 
        significantly reduce the Federal budget deficit;
Whereas the national debt now exceeds $23,000,000,000,000 dollars, equivalent to 
        approximately $70,000 for each citizen in America;
Whereas research shows that reducing Government spending rather than raising 
        taxes is the most effective way to reduce the deficit and has 
        historically been correlated with fiscal success around the world;
Whereas studies show that when the Federal Government cuts taxes on American 
        businesses and job creators, they are more likely to hire new workers 
        and make investments;
Whereas reducing Government spending and not increasing taxes directly improves 
        the economy by increasing the confidence that business owners and 
        investors have in the economy;
Whereas the Government can help businesses and the economy succeed by focusing 
        on supporting the private sector rather than imposing heavy taxes on 
        American businesses;
Whereas every increase in spending should be offset with a spending decrease; 
        and
Whereas defense spending is critical to the security of the United States and 
        cannot be forgoed for increases in nondefense discretionary spending: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the debt ceiling should not be raised without 
significant fiscal and spending reforms that would put the United 
States on a path to balance the budget.
                                 <all>
```
|EXHIBIT 23(b)
|-------------









|INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
|-----------------------------



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Nos. 33-17196, 33-44822, 33-44877, 33-44876, 33-22459, 33-38491, 33-54075, 33-54079, 33-54077, 333-47833, 333-28273, 333-38752, 333-62572, 333-62568) on Form S-8 and (Nos. 33-36001 and 333-60175) on Form S-3, of Wellman, Inc. of our report dated February 12, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Wellman International Limited and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, which report appears in the December 31, 2002 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Wellman, Inc.











KPMG
Chartered Accountants
Registered Auditors
Dublin, Ireland





26 March 2003
PD-0438-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 7/24/2015 11:00:52 AM

Accepted 7/24/2015 11:16:11 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the quarterly report of Pegasi Energy Resources Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Michael Neufeld, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934;
and





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





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Pegasi Energy Resources Corporation and will be retained by Pegasi Energy
Resources Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.





Date:  November
      13, 2008
            By:/s/ MICHAEL
      NEUFELDMichael
      NeufeldChief
      Executive Officer