alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work — Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2004

(2005/C 269/01)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

http://agency.osha.eu.int

Table 1

Implementation of the budget for the financial year 2004

Table 2

Revenue and expenditure account for the financial years 2004 and 2003

Table 3

Balance sheet at 31 December 2004 and 31 December 2003

----

(1)  This sum includes payments made from the appropriations to be reused in 2004 (18 573 euro).

(2)  Calculation according to the principles of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 (OJ L 130, 31.5.2000, p. 8).

NB: Differences in totals are due to the effects of rounding.

----
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

#### Contact Us

Thing to Do

# Short Hike to Makahiku Falls

Haleakalā National Park
### §6336. Sale of perishable goods

If the Secretary determines that any property seized is liable to perish, he shall appraise the value of such property and—

#### (1) Return to owner

If the owner of the property can be readily found, the Secretary shall give him notice of such determination of the appraised value of the property. The property shall be returned to the owner if, within such time as may be specified in the notice, the owner—

(A) Pays to the Secretary an amount equal to the appraised value, or

(B) Gives bond in such form, with such sureties, and in such amount as the Secretary shall prescribe, to pay the appraised amount at such time as the Secretary determines to be appropriate in the circumstances.

#### (2) Immediate sale

If the owner does not pay such amount or furnish such bond in accordance with this section, the Secretary shall as soon as practicable make public sale of the property in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 786; Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834; Pub. L. 116–25, title I, §1404(a), July 1, 2019, 133 Stat. 997.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2019—Pub. L. 116–25 struck out "or become greatly reduced in price or value by keeping, or that such property cannot be kept without great expense" after "to perish" in introductory provisions.

1976—Pub. L. 94–455 struck out "or his delegate" after "Secretary" wherever appearing.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2019 Amendment

Pub. L. 116–25, title I, §1404(b), July 1, 2019, 133 Stat. 997, provided that: "The amendment made by this section [amending this section] shall apply to property seized after the date of the enactment of this Act [July 1, 2019]."
§ 4.1195 Determination by the administrative law judge. ( a ) Upon a determination by the administrative law judge that a pattern of violations exists or has existed, the administrative law judge shall order the permit either suspended or revoked. In making such a determination, the administrative law judge need not find that all the violations listed in the show cause order occurred, but only that sufficient violations occurred to establish a pattern.
( b ) If the permit is suspended, the minimum suspension period shall be 3 working days unless the administrative law judge finds that imposition of the minimum suspension period would result in manifest injustice and would not further the purposes of the act. Also, the administrative law judge may impose preconditions to be satisfied prior to the suspension being lifted.
( c ) The decision of the administrative law judge shall be issued within 20 days following the date the hearing record is closed by the administrative law judge or within 20 days of receipt of the answer, if no hearing is requested by any party and the administrative law judge determines that no hearing is necessary.
( d ) At any stage of a suspension or revocation proceeding being conducted by an administrative law judge, the parties may enter into a settlement, subject to the approval of the administrative law judge.
[43 FR 34386, Aug. 3, 1978. Redesignated and amended at 67 FR 61510, Oct. 1, 2002]
§ 107.830 Minimum duration/term of financing. ( a ) *General rule.* The duration/term of all your Financings must be for a minimum period of one year.
( b ) *Restrictions on mandatory redemption of Equity Securities.* If you have acquired Equity Securities, options or warrants on terms that include redemption by the Small Business, you must not require redemption by the Small Business within the first year of your acquisition except as permitted in § 107.850.
( c ) *Special rules for Loans and Debt Securities* — ( 1 ) *Term.* The minimum term for Loans and Debt Securities starts with the first disbursement of the Financing.
( 2 ) *Prepayment.* You must permit voluntary prepayment of Loans and Debt Securities by the Small Business. You must obtain SBA's prior written approval of any restrictions on the ability of the Small Business to prepay other than the imposition of a reasonable prepayment penalty under paragraph (c)(3) of this section. For purposes of evaluating prepayment restrictions under this section, requirements to apply prepayments pro rata among a group of lenders participating in such Financing that is pari passu in rights to payment will not be deemed to constitute a restriction on prepayments.
( 3 ) *Prepayment penalties.* You may charge a reasonable prepayment penalty which must be agreed upon at the time of the Financing. If SBA determines that a prepayment penalty is unreasonable, you must refund the entire penalty to the Small Business. A prepayment penalty equal to 5 percent of the outstanding balance during the first year of any Financing, declining by one percentage point per year through the fifth year, is considered reasonable.
[61 FR 3189, Jan. 31, 1996, as amended at 69 FR 8098, Feb. 23, 2004; 88 FR 46012, July 18, 2023]
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 22 (Monday, February 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 6190]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02260]

[[Page 6190]]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Friday, February 21, 2014.

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance, Enforcement Matters, and 
Examinations. In the event that the times, dates, or locations of this 
or any future meetings change, an announcement of the change, along 
with the new time and place of the meeting will be posted on the 
Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Melissa D. Jurgens, 202-418-5516.

Natise Allen,
Executive Assistant.
[FR Doc. 2014-02260 Filed 1-30-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
### Subpart G—Export Trade Corporations

Sec.
970.
Reduction of subpart F income of export trade corporations.
971.
Definitions.
[972.
Repealed.]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1976**—Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1901(b)(27)(B), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1799, struck out item 972 "Consolidation of group of export trade corporations".

**1962**—Pub. L. 87–834, §12(a), Oct. 16, 1962, 76 Stat. 1027, added heading of subpart G, and items 970 to 972.
Tags:

                          - Bureau of Economics

March 2005

In this paper, we examine price movements over time around the collapse of a bid-rigging conspiracy. While the mean decreased by sixteen percent, the standard deviation increased by over two hundred percent. We hypothesize that conspiracies in other industries would exhibit similar characteristics and search for “pockets” of low price variation as indicators of collusion in the retail gasoline industry in Louisville. We observe no such areas around Louisville in 1996-2002.

A Variance Screen For Collusion(759.2 KB)

**Return to top
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          23,296
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   57,049
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,655
<PP&E>                                          71,770
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,450
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,507,124
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,458
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        49,696
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,327,853
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,507,124
<SALES>                                         60,153
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               105,674
<CGS>                                           62,477
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   62,477
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,190
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 43,467
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,150
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             29,317
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 19,067
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    48,384
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        

</TABLE>
#### Maurice Fisher, Appellant-Respondent, v. Milton Paper Company, Inc., et al., Respondents-Appellants.

No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Glennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.
§ 4.1367 Request for temporary relief. ( a ) Where review is requested pursuant to § 4.1362, any party may file a request for temporary relief at any time prior to a decision by an Administrative Law Judge, so long as the relief sought is not the issuance of a permit where a permit application has been disapproved in whole or in part.
( b ) The request shall be filed with the Administrative Law Judge to whom the case has been assigned. If no assignment has been made, the application shall be filed in the Hearings Division, Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S. Department of the Interior.
( c ) The application shall include— ( 1 ) A detailed written statement setting forth the reasons why relief should be granted;
( 2 ) A statement of the specific relief requested;
( 3 ) A showing that there is a substantial likelihood that the person seeking relief will prevail on the merits of the final determination of the proceeding; and
( 4 ) A showing that the relief sought will not adversely affect the public health or safety or cause significant, imminent environmental harm to land, air, or water resources.
( d ) The Administrative Law Judge may hold a hearing on any issue raised by the application.
( e ) The Administrative Law Judge shall issue expeditiously an order or decision granting or denying such temporary relief. Temporary relief may be granted only if— ( 1 ) All parties to the proceeding have been notified and given an opportunity to be heard on a request for temporary relief;
( 2 ) The person requesting such relief shows a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the final determination of the proceeding; and
( 3 ) Such relief will not adversely affect the public health or safety or cause significant, imminent environmental harm to land, air, or water resources.
( f ) Appeals of temporary relief decisions. ( 1 ) Any party desiring to appeal the decision of the Administrative Law Judge granting or denying temporary relief may appeal to the Board, or, in the alternative, may seek judicial review pursuant to section 526(a), 30 U.S.C. 1276(a), of the Act.
( 2 ) The Board shall issue an expedited briefing schedule and shall issue a decision on the appeal expeditiously.
[43 FR 34386, Aug. 3, 1978, as amended at 67 FR 4368, Jan. 30, 2002; 88 FR 5796, Jan. 30, 2023]
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied, in Part, and Dismissed, in Part and 

Memorandum Opinion filed November 17, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-16-00832-CV

IN RE STEPHEN D. DIFERRANTE, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Probate Court No. 3

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 449338

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 19, 2016, relator Stephen D. Diferrante filed a petition for writ 

of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see 

also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the 

Honorable Rory Olsen, presiding judge of Probate Court No. 3 of Harris County,
2

and the court reporter for Probate Court No. 3 to provide him an accurate certified 

copy of the reporter’s record or the audio recording of a hearing held on July 18, 

2016, in that court.

Relator has not provided a sufficient record to establish that he is entitled to

mandamus relief against Judge Olsen. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 

(Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1). 

This court does not have mandamus jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus 

against the court reporter. This court’s mandamus jurisdiction is governed by 

section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code. Section 22.221 expressly limits the 

mandamus jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to: (1) writs against a district court 

judge or a county court judge in the court of appeals’ district; and (2) all writs 

necessary to enforce the court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. 

§ 22.221. The court reporter is not a district court or county court judge in this 

court’s district, and relator has not shown that the issuance of a writ compelling the 

requested relief is necessary to enforce this court’s appellate jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus to the extent

relator seeks relief against Judge Olsen and we dismiss relator’s petition to the 

extent relator seeks relief against the court reporter. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Busby, Donovan, and Brown.
§ 3200.8 What regulations apply to leases issued in response to applications pending on August 8, 2005? ( a ) Any leases issued in response to applications that were pending on August 8, 2005, are subject to this part and part 3280, except that such leases are subject to the BLM regulations in effect on August 8, 2005 (43 CFR parts 3200 and 3280 (2004)), with regard to regulatory provisions relating to royalties, minimum royalties, rentals, primary term and lease extensions, diligence and annual work requirements, and renewals.
( b ) ( 1 ) The lessee of a lease issued pursuant to an application that was pending on August 8, 2005, may elect to be subject to all of the regulations in this part and part 3280, without regard to the exceptions in paragraph (a) of this section.
( 2 ) For leases issued on or after August 8, 2005, and before June 1, 2007, an election under paragraph (b)(1) of this section must occur no later than December 1, 2008.
( 3 ) For leases issued on or after June 1, 2007, the lease applicant must make its election under paragraph (b)(1) of this section and notify BLM before the lease is issued.
<Page>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Matthew Carson, Chief Financial Officer of TouchTunes Music Corporation ("the
Company"), have reviewed the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for
the quarter ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), and based on the inquiries I have
made or caused to be made in the fulfillment of my responsibilities as the Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that for the periods covered by the Report:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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/ Matthew Carson
-----------------------
Matthew Carson
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2003

THIS CERTIFICATE IS BEING MADE FOR THE EXCLUSIVE PURPOSE OF COMPLIANCE BY THE
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF THE COMPANY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 906, AND
SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE A PART OF THE REPORT OR FILED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE.

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE COMPANY AND FURNISHED TO THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Theodore R. Maloney,certify that:

 

1.  The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the yearended June 30, 2003 (the “Report”) of MediCor Ltd. (the “Company”), fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of MediCor.

 

Date:October 10, 2003

 
|   | /s/ Theodore R. Maloney |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Theodore R. Maloney     |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Morris Antebi, Respondent, v. M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc., Appellant.

Present — Glennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.
§ 3179.72 Required reporting and recordkeeping of vented and flared gas volumes. ( a ) The operator must report all flared volumes, both avoidable and unavoidable losses, using all applicable ONRR reporting requirements.
( b ) The operator must report the flared gas quality in Btu on the OGOR based on the gas analysis required in § 3179.71(d) or (e). The operator must report the same Btu content from a common flare on the OGOR for all the leases, unit PAs, or CAs contributing gas to the flare based on the gas sample analysis.
( c ) Starting on September 10, 2024,operators must maintain the following records and make them available to the AO upon request: ( 1 ) Date and time when oil or gas-well flaring begins and ends, the reason for flaring and whether the well, lease, unit PA, or CA was shut-in or returned to sales when the flaring stopped;
( 2 ) Date and time when an emergency begins and ends, the reason for the emergency, whether the gas was vented or flared, and whether the well, lease, unit PA, or CA was shut-in or returned to sales when the emergency ended;
( 3 ) Date and time when manual downhole liquids unloading operation or well purging begins and ends, and whether the well was shut-in or returned to sales at the end of the well maintenance.
§ 414.1 Purpose. ( a ) *What this part does.* This part establishes a procedural framework for the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to follow in considering, participating in, and administering Storage and Interstate Release Agreements in the Lower Division States (Arizona, California, and Nevada) that would: ( 1 ) Permit State-authorized entities to store Colorado River water offstream;
( 2 ) Permit State-authorized entities to develop intentionally created unused apportionment (ICUA);
( 3 ) Permit State-authorized entities to make ICUA available to the Secretary for release for use in another Lower Division State. This release may only take place in accordance with the Secretary's obligations under Federal law and may occur in either the year of storage or in years subsequent to storage; and
( 4 ) Allow only voluntary interstate water transactions. These water transactions can help to satisfy regional water demands by increasing the efficiency, flexibility, and certainty in Colorado River management in accordance with the Secretary's authority under Article II (B) (6) of the Decree entered March 9, 1964 (376 U.S. 340) in the case of *Arizona* v. *California,* (373 U.S. 546) (1963), as supplemented and amended.
( b ) *What this part does not do.* This part does not: ( 1 ) Affect any Colorado River water entitlement holder's right to use its full water entitlement;
( 2 ) Address or preclude independent actions by the Secretary regarding Tribal storage and water transfer activities;
( 3 ) Change or expand existing authorities under the body of law known as the “Law of the River”;
( 4 ) Change the apportionments made for use within individual States;
( 5 ) Address intrastate storage or intrastate distribution of water;
( 6 ) Preclude a Storing State from storing some of its unused apportionment in another Lower Division State if consistent with applicable State law; or
( 7 ) Authorize any specific activities; the rule provides a framework only.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsOptimal expression evaluation for data parallel architecturesA data parallel machine represents an array or other composite data structure by allocating one processor (at least conceptually) per data item. A pointwise operation can be performed between two such arrays in unit time, provided their corresponding elements are allocated in the same processors. If the arrays are not aligned in this fashion, the cost of moving one or both of them is part of the cost of the operation. The choice of where to perform the operation then affects this cost. If an expression with several operands is to be evaluated, there may be many choices of where to perform the intermediate operations. An efficient algorithm is given to find the minimum-cost way to evaluate an expression, for several different data parallel architectures. This algorithm applies to any architecture in which the metric describing the cost of moving an array is robust. This encompasses most of the common data parallel communication architectures, including meshes of arbitrary dimension and hypercubes. Remarks are made on several variations of the problem, some of which are solved and some of which remain open.Document ID19920002478Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsGilbert, John R.*(Xerox Palo Alto Research Center CA., United States)*Schreiber, Robert*(Research Inst. for Advanced Computer Science Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateApril 24, 1990Subject CategoryComputer SystemsReport/Patent NumberRIACS-TR-90-15NASA-CR-187773NAS 1.26:187773Accession Number92N11696Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NCC2-387Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19920002478.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024