alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 146.2 Administration. ( a ) The Department cooperates through a Memorandum of Understanding with the Official State Agency in the administration of the Plan. In the Memorandum of Understanding, the Official State Agency must designate a contact representative to serve as a liaison between the Service and the Official State Agency.
( b ) The administrative procedures and decisions of the Official State Agency are subject to review by the Service. The Official State Agency shall carry out the administration of the Plan within the State according to the applicable provisions of the Plan and the Memorandum of Understanding.
( c ) ( 1 ) An Official State Agency may accept for participation a commercial table-egg layer pullet flock, commercial table-egg layer flock, or a commercial meat-type flock (including an affiliated flock) located in another participating State under a mutual understanding and agreement, in writing, between the two Official State Agencies regarding conditions of participation and supervision.
( 2 ) An Official State Agency may accept for participation a commercial table-egg layer pullet flock, commercial table-egg layer flock, or a commercial meat-type flock (including an affiliated flock) located in a State that does not participate in the Plan under a mutual understanding and agreement, in writing, between the owner of the flock and the Official State Agency regarding conditions of participation and supervision.
( d ) The Official State Agency of any State may adopt regulations applicable to the administration of the Plan in such State further defining the provisions of the Plan or establishing higher standards, compatible with the Plan.
( e ) An authorized laboratory will conduct tests in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter when determining the status of a participating flock with respect to an official Plan classification.
( f ) Cooperating State Agencies will be responsible for making the determination to request Federal assistance under part 56 of this chapter in the event of an outbreak of H5/H7 LPAI.
[71 FR 56328, Sept. 26, 2006, as amended at 74 FR 14716, Apr. 1, 2009; 75 FR 10658, Mar. 9, 2010; 79 FR 38765, July 9, 2014; 81 FR 53250, Aug. 12, 2016]
###### Editorial Note on Part 900

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

#### § 900.244 Will an Indian tribe or tribal organization's retrocession adversely affect funding available for the retroceded program?

No. The Secretary shall provide not less than the same level of funding that would have been available if there had been no retrocession.
#### § 102.1 Licenses issued by the Administrator.

Each establishment qualified to prepare biological products under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act shall hold an unexpired and unrevoked U.S. Veterinary Biologics Establishment License issued by the Administrator and a U.S. Veterinary Biological Product License for each product prepared in such establishment unless the product is subject to the provisions of 9 CFR parts 103 or 106 of this subchapter.

[60 FR 48021, Sept. 18, 1995]
156 So.2d 725

#### David RATLIFF v. Lillian RATLIFF.

6 Div. 997.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Sept. 26, 1963.

I. D. Jeffrey, Birmingham, for appellant.

Lowe & Williams, Birmingham, for appellee.

HARWOOD, Justice.

This is an appeal from a decree of divorce rendered against the appellant, who, after personal service, filed no pleadings in the proceedings below.

In his brief, counsel for appellant, under “Statement of Facts” sets forth:

> “This is a divorce proceeding filed on January 7th, 1963; at the same time a Motion for reference was filed in said cause as a part of the proceeding and set for hearing on Friday, January 11, 1963, at 9:30 A.M.

> “Respondent by and through his solicitor, appellant here, appeared in open court and consented to the Motion being granted, with request and assurance that he be notified before any further proceedings were had. There was also a discussion about a possible settlement.

> “There was a decree pro confessorendered, testimony taken and submitted to the Court and a final decree rendered on March 7th, 1963 without any notice to or Knowledge of the respondent, appellant here, or his solicitor.”

On the other hand counsel for the appellee state in their brief that there was no.appearance by respondent at any time in-the proceedings below, nor was there any agreement between counsel as to any steps, to be taken therein.

On its face this record is regular.

We cannot consider any agreement-that may or may not have been made between counsel unless the same be reduced to writing and signed. Supreme Court Rule-20.

Further, counsel for appellant has-, in argument grouped all but one of his assignments of error with other assignments. In each of these groupings at least one or-more of the assignments are faulty or-palpably without merit. Where any one of the unrelated assignments grouped for-*561argument is without merit, other assignments in the group will not he considered.

The one assignment argued separately (Assignment 3) does not assert error on the part of the court, but complains of the insufficiency of the signature to the “Motion for Decree Pro Confesso on Personal Service.” This did not involve any ruling by the court, and presents nothing for our review.

Affirmed.

LAWSON, GOODWYN and MERRILL, JJ., concur.
#### § 100.150 Ballot access fees.

Amounts transferred by a party committee to another party committee or payments made to the appropriate State official of fees collected from candidates or their authorized committees as a condition of ballot access are not expenditures.
§ 2.8 Annual report. The Commission shall report annually to Congress regarding its compliance with the requirements of the Government in the Sunshine Act and of this part, including: ( a ) A tabulation of the total number of Commission meetings open to the public;
( b ) The total number of such meetings closed to the public;
( c ) The reasons for closing such meetings; and
( d ) A description of any litigation brought against the Commission under the Sunshine Act, including any costs assessed against the Commission in such litigation (whether or not paid by the Commission).
### §502. Liability of shareholders of Federal reserve banks on contracts, etc.

The shareholders of every Federal reserve bank shall be held individually responsible, equally and ratably, and not one for another, for all contracts, debts, and engagements of such bank to the extent of the amount of their subscriptions to such stock at the par value thereof in addition to the amount subscribed, whether such subscriptions have been paid up in whole or in part under the provisions of this chapter.

(Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, §2 (par.), 38 Stat. 252.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning act Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, known as the Federal Reserve Act. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see References in Text note set out under section 226 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section is comprised of the fourth par. of section 2 of act Dec. 23, 1913. For classification of other pars. of section 2 of this Act, see Codification note set out under section 222 of this title.
#### § 9004.5 Investment of public funds; other uses resulting in income.

Investment of public funds or any other use of public funds that results in income is permissible, provided that an amount equal to all net income derived from such a use, less Federal, State and local taxes paid on such income, shall be paid to the Secretary. Any net loss from an investment or other use of public funds will be considered a non-qualified campaign expense and an amount equal to the amount of such loss shall be repaid to the United States Treasury as provided under 11 CFR 9007.2(b)(2)(i).

[60 FR 31876, June 16, 1995]
Document Headings

                    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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on February 4, 2011, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), ASTM International Standards (“ASTM”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, ASTM has provided an updated list of current, ongoing ASTM standards activities originating between December 2010 and February 2011 designated as Work Items. A complete listing of ASTM Work Items, along with a brief description of each, is available at                     *http://www.astm.org.*

                    On September 15, 2004, ASTM filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on November 10, 2004 (69 FR 65226).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on December 6, 2010. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on January 10, 2011 (76 FR 1459).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2011-4918 Filed 3-4-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
EXHIBIT 13.1

                         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 Annual Report of Grupo Televisa, S.A. (the
"Company") on Form 20-F/A for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Emilio Azcarraga Jean, Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


By:  /s/ Emilio Azcarraga Jean
    -------------------------------
    Name:  Emilio Azcarraga Jean
    Title: Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer


Dated: March 3, 2004
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors 

Foamex International Inc.:

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 33-74264, 33-94154, and 333-90020) on Form S-8 of Foamex International Inc. of our report dated March 29, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Foamex International Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006 and January 1, 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, cash flows, and stockholders’ deficiency for each of the fiscal years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2006, and the related financial statement schedules listed in the Index at Item 15, which report appears in the December 31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of Foamex International Inc.

Our report refers to changes in accounting principles for the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised), “Share-Based Payment” effective January 2, 2006, Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158, “Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans – an amendment of FASB Statement No. 87, 88, 106 and 132 (R)” effective December 31, 2006, and Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 47, “Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations – an interpetation of FASB Statement No. 143” effective January 1, 2006.

 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

March 29, 2007
TELEPHONE CONTACT SUMMARY

– 0210426.004.05

FROM: David Green, RTI International

DATE OF CONTACT: June 10, 2010

ORGANIZATION CONTACTED:

American Petroleum Institute and Members

Participants:

Matt Todd, API

Michelle Herman, Chevron

Charlie Bennett, Mara

thon

Bob Morehouse, ExxonMobil

Jim Griffin, ACC

Rebecca Esparza, Plains All American

Rich Anderson, Plains All American

John Lowe, Chevron

Karen Schaffner, RTI

Ryan Bowers,

Peter Weaver, ILTA

Carol Butero, Kinder Morgan

Steve Shedd, EPA

Russell Wozniak, Dow

Rob Ferry, TGB

Marise Textor, TPC Group

James Scroggins, TPC Group

Clay Freeberg, Chevron

David Green, RTI

SUMMARY OF CONTACT

API members stated that terminals make connections to an attachment on the deck of the

vessels to be f

illed. The permanently installed submerged piping in the vessel is not

obvious to the terminal operator. Typically vessels are loaded and unloaded through the

same line, and thus are inherently equipped with submerged fill systems. Terminal

operators do not have good data on how close to the loading pipe comes to the bottom of

the cargo tank.
#### § 202.102 Rule 2: Definitions.

Terms defined in the Act shall mean the same in these rules as in the Act. In addition, and except as may be provided otherwise in these rules:

*Act* means the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, and legislation supplementary thereto and amendatory thereof, 7 U.S.C. 181 *et seq.;*

*Agency* means those divisions and offices of the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the Department which are charged with administration of the Act;

*Agency Head* means the Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the Department, or any officer or employee of the Agency to whom authority is lawfully delegated to act for the Administrator;

*Complainant* means the party who files a complaint and claims reparation, or on whose behalf a complaint is filed and reparation is claimed, in a reparation proceeding;

*Department* means the United States Department of Agriculture;

*Docketing* of a reparation proceeding means transmittal of papers to the Hearing Clerk and assignment of a docket number as provided in Rule 8, § 202.108, of these rules;

*Hearing* means that part of a reparation proceeding which involves the submission of evidence for the record and means either an oral or a written hearing;

*Hearing Clerk* means the Hearing Clerk of the Department (see 7 CFR 2.25(a)(3));

*Judicial Officer* means the official of the Department delegated authority by the Secretary, pursuant to the Act of April 4, 1940 (7 U.S.C. 450c-450g) and Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, to perform the function involved (see 7 CFR 2.35);

*Mail* means to deposit an item in the United States mail with postage affixed and addressed as necessary to cause it to be delivered to the address shown by ordinary mail, or by certified or registered mail if specified.

*Presiding Officer* means any attorney who is employed in the Office of the General Counsel of the Department and is assigned so to act in a reparation proceeding;

*Re-mail* means to mail by ordinary mail to an address an item that has been returned after being sent to the same address by certified or registered mail.

*Reparation proceeding* or *Proceeding* means a proceeding under the Act before the Secretary, in which an order for the payment of money is claimed and in which the Secretary is not a party of record;

*Report* means the report to the Judicial Officer of the presiding officer's recommended findings of fact and conclusions with respect to all material issues of fact, law or discretion, as well as the reasons or basis therefor, and order, in a reparation proceeding.

*Respondent* means the party against whom a complaint is filed and reparation is claimed, in a reparation proceeding;

*Secretary* means the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, or any officer or employee of the Department to whom authority is lawfully delegated to act for the Secretary;

[43 FR 30510, July 14, 1978, as amended at 46 FR 60414, Dec. 10, 1981; 55 FR 41183, Oct. 10, 1990; 60 FR 8465, Feb. 14, 1995; 84 FR 45647, Aug. 30, 2019]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frederick Reed, Appellant.

[825 NYS2d 600]

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank E Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered January 8, 2001. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.18 [1]), defendant contends that the police exceeded the scope of his consent to search his vehicle when they removed screws securing the center column of the vehicle and then removed the center console, thereby revealing cocaine and a gun. That contention is unpreserved for our review *(see People v Vasquez,*66 NY2d 968 [1985], *cert denied*475 US 1109 [1986]) and, in any event, it lacks merit. As the Court of Appeals wrote in *People v Gomez*(5 NY3d 416, 420 [2005]), “[i]n the absence of other circumstances indicating that defendant authorized the actions taken by police, a general consent to search alone cannot justify a search that impairs the structural integrity of a vehicle or that results in the vehicle being returned in a materially different manner than [in which] it was found.” Here, defendant gave the police a broad consent to search his “1991 Toyota.”. Defendant was present during the search of the vehicle and did not object to the scope of the search, nor did the search impair the structural integrity of the vehicle *(cf. id.*at 420-421). The record establishes that the police did not break the console in order to search beneath it and that the screws securing the center column, some of which were broken before the police removed them, were not the original screws from the factory where the vehicle was manufactured. Present—Scudder, J.E, Kehoe, Gorski, Smith and Pine, JJ.
# C_2007042EN.01004201.xml

| 24.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/42

---

Appeal brought on 22 December 2006 against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 October 2006 in Case F-53/06, Gualtieri v Commission

(Case T-413/06 P)

(2007/C 42/73)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Claudia Gualtieri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by M. Gualtieri and P. Gualtieri, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | annulment of the contested order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 October 2006, and a declaration that the Civil Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the dispute. |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of the contested order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 October 2006, and a declaration that the Civil Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal has been brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 9 October 2006 in Case F-53/06, by which the Civil Service Tribunal declared that it lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae to make a ruling in the dispute between the applicant — a national expert on secondment — and the Commission.

ratione materiae

In support of her appeal, the appellant alleges that the contested measure is based on a superficial and incorrect understanding of Article 1(2) of the Commission Decision concerning the rules applicable to seconded national experts (SNEs). On that point, she refers to Article 7(a), (f) and (g), Article 11(1) and (3), Article 12(1) and (2), Article 13(1), Article 14 and Article 15 of that Decision.

According to the appellant, it is to be inferred from that multiplicity of provisions that the relationship between a national expert and the home administration remains dormant throughout the period of secondment and that during that period the national expert on secondment is fully integrated in the Commission organisation, for whose exclusive benefit the expert is required to carry out his or her duties.

Consequently, there can be no doubt that disputes relating to that special employment relationship fall within the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal, the legal position of national experts on secondment being clearly assimilated to that of servants.

---
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Maximino Villafane

The defendant’s motion for review by this court of the denial by the trial court of his “Motion to Dismiss and/or Release from Custody” in the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County is granted. The parties are directed to submit briefs (which may be in typewritten form but must comply with the other requirements of Practice Book § 723, as amended) on or before April 30, 1974. Upon receipt of the briefs, this court will assign the matter for oral argument.

*676
      *L. Scott Melville,*special public defender, in support of the motion.

*Joseph T. Gormley, Jr.,*chief state’s attorney, in opposition.

Submitted March 15

decided April *4,*1974