alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 134
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 134.901 Scope of the rules in this subpart. ( a ) The rules of practice in this subpart apply to Size Standard Petitions.
( b ) Except where inconsistent with this subpart, the provisions of subparts A and B of this part apply to Size Standard Petitions listed in paragraph (a) of this section.
#### § 142.37 What judicial review is available?

31 U.S.C. 3805 authorizes judicial review by the appropriate United States District Court of any final SBA decision imposing penalties or assessments, and specifies the procedures for such review. To obtain judicial review, a defendant must file a petition in a timely fashion.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed February 15, 2017.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-2038

Lower Tribunal No. 09-30967

________________

Steven Vandesande,

Appellant,

vs.

Miami-Dade County,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice

Butchko, Judge.

Steven Vandesande, in proper person.

Abigail Price-Williams, Miami-Dade County Attorney, and William X.

Candela, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, C.J. and SALTER and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment on Count I of

Appellant Steven Vandesande’s Third Amended Complaint. Peeples v. Peeples,

871 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (barring former husband’s supplemental

petition on the basis of res judicata).

We also affirm the trial court’s directed verdict on the remaining counts of

Vandesande’s Third Amended Complaint. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of

Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (holding that “[w]ithout a record of

the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying

factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by

the evidence or by an alternative theory.”).

Affirmed.

2
### §2639. Burden of proof; evidence of value

(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, in any civil action commenced in the Court of International Trade under section 515, 516, or 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930, the decision of the Secretary of the Treasury, the administering authority, or the International Trade Commission is presumed to be correct. The burden of proving otherwise shall rest upon the party challenging such decision.

(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply to any civil action commenced in the Court of International Trade under section 1582 of this title.

(b) In any civil action described in section 1581(h) of this title, the person commencing the action shall have the burden of making the demonstration required by such section by clear and convincing evidence.

(c) Where the value of merchandise or any of its components is in issue in any civil action in the Court of International Trade—

(1) reports or depositions of consuls, customs officers, and other officers of the United States, and depositions and affidavits of other persons whose attendance cannot reasonably be had, may be admitted into evidence when served upon the opposing party as prescribed by the rules of the court; and

(2) price lists and catalogs may be admitted in evidence when duly authenticated, relevant, and material.

(Added Pub. L. 96–417, title III, §301, Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1736.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Sections 515, 516, and 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), are classified to sections 1515, 1516, and 1516a, respectively, of Title 19, Customs Duties.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2639, acts June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 982; June 2, 1970, Pub. L. 91–271, title I, §120, 84 Stat. 281, provided for retrial or rehearing, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 96–417. See section 2646 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date

Subsec. (a)(2) of this section applicable with respect to civil actions commenced on or after the 90th day after Nov. 1, 1980, see section 701(c)(1)(A) of Pub. L. 96–417, set out as an Effective Date of 1980 Amendment note under section 251 of this title.

Subsec. (b) of this section applicable with respect to civil actions commenced on or after Nov. 1, 1980, see section 701(b)(1)(B) of Pub. L. 96–417.
### §1372. Partnership rules to apply for fringe benefit purposes

#### (a) General rule

For purposes of applying the provisions of this subtitle which relate to employee fringe benefits—

(1) the S corporation shall be treated as a partnership, and

(2) any 2-percent shareholder of the S corporation shall be treated as a partner of such partnership.

#### (b) 2-percent shareholder defined

For purposes of this section, the term "2-percent shareholder" means any person who owns (or is considered as owning within the meaning of section 318) on any day during the taxable year of the S corporation more than 2 percent of the outstanding stock of such corporation or stock possessing more than 2 percent of the total combined voting power of all stock of such corporation.

(Added Pub. L. 97–354, §2, Oct. 19, 1982, 96 Stat. 1682.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 1372, added Pub. L. 85–866, title I, §64(a), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1650; amended Pub. L. 87–29, §2, May 4, 1961, 75 Stat. 64; Pub. L. 89–389, §§2(b)(2), 3(a), Apr. 14, 1966, 80 Stat. 114; Pub. L. 91–683, §1(a), Jan. 12, 1971, 84 Stat. 2067; Pub. L. 94–455, title IX, §902(c)(3), title XIX, §§1901(a)(149), 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1609, 1788, 1834; Pub. L. 95–600, title III, §343, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2843; Pub. L. 95–628, §5(a), (b), Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3628, related to manner, effect, termination, etc., of an election not to be subject to taxes imposed under this chapter, prior to the general revision of this subchapter by section 2 of Pub. L. 97–354.

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1982, except that in the case of a taxable year beginning during 1982, sections 1362(d)(3), 1366(f)(3), and 1375 of this title shall apply and subsec. (e)(5) of this section as in effect on the day before Oct. 19, 1982, shall not apply, see section 6(a), (b)(3), of Pub. L. 97–354, set out as a note under section 1361 of this title. For additional provisions relating to the treatment of existing fringe benefit plans and the application of this section, see section 6(d) of Pub. L. 97–354, set out as a note under section 1361 of this title.
GEORGE W. CLARK

,
Appellant,

v.

SOUTHERN LAND CONCEPTS, INC., WILLIAM R. WARD AS THE OWNER, PRESIDENT, SURVEYOR, AND THE REGISTERED AGENT FOR THE CORPORATION

,
Appellee s

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UN TIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 1 6

- 2 538

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 3, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Thomas V. Dannheisser , Judge

.
George W . Clark , pro se, Appellant.

Edmund W. Holt, Pensacola , for Appellee s

.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE

, KELSEY, and JAY, J J

., CONCUR.
Exhibit 31.1


Rule 13a-14(d) Certification





I, In-Young Chase, certify that:





1.           I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of MS Structured Asset Corp. on behalf of SATURNS Trust No. 2001-6;





2.           Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;





3.           Based on my knowledge, and except as disclosed in the respective Compliance Statements of U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) as successor-in-interest to Bank of America, National Association (“BANA”), and BANA as successor by merger to LaSalle Bank National Association (collectively, the “trustees”), the distribution or servicing information required to be provided to the depositor by the trustees under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports; and





4.           I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trustees under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the Compliance Statements, the depositor and trustees have each fulfilled their obligations under that agreement.





In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: (i) U.S. Bank as successor-in-interest to BANA and its officers and agents and (ii) BANA as successor by merger to LaSalle Bank National Association and its officers and agents.


By: /s/In-Young ChaseName:        In-Young ChaseTitle:          Vice PresidentDate:          March 28, 2012
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


To the Partners of
TE Products Pipeline Company, Limited Partnership:

We consent to incorporation by reference herein of our report dated January 16,
1998, except as to Note 7, which is as of January 27, 1998, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of TEPPCO Partners, L.P. as of December 31, 1997
and 1996, and the related consolidated statements of income, partners' capital,
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December
31, 1997, which report appears in the December 31, 1997 annual report on Form
10-K of TEPPCO Partners, L.P.

                                        /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
                                        KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Houston, Texas
March 30, 1998
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Eliza Ranney, Deceased. Albert O. Gersley et al., Appellants; Lily E. Snider, Respondent.

Present — Taylor, P. J., Love, VaughanKimball, and Piper, JJ.
Clean Power Plan Comment for Thursday, July 31 

To cut carbon by approximately 30% is a good beginning point, but we must consider 

doing better. Methane and nuclear waste are not mentioned in the clean power plan, nor 

the carbon we export to other countries, which after being extracted here, is not counted 

in the 30% for the U.S.A. This plan falls short because extraction and development of 

dirty energy is not curtailed. 

Clean energy development should be financially supported in this plan as most 

Americans, as shown by recent studies, would pay more for clean solar and wind. 

To be realistic, a no-carbon future needs to be the goal now. Germany is leading the way 

and we should be as ambitious. The expense of climate-change storms, fires, and rising 

seas are financially greater than clean energy development. 

Nuclear propped up, as it is in Illinois, and new plants, as in Georgia are funded by rate 

and tax payers. As I said above, people want to pay for wind and solar. Propping up old 

nuclear plants and developing new will not only suppress real clean energy growth, but 

will cost more in terms of carbon pollution. 

I say nuclear will grow carbon pollution, because it is considered clean, and, at least in 

Illinois where I live, these clean credits are proposed to be traded so we can increase dirty 

coal mining. Also in Illinois we face the industrialization of horizontal fracking which is 

methane-laden. Not only are fracking and coal mining depleting and polluting our climate 

and water , it appears the mining will involve horizontal fracking of coal seams. This 

dirty extraction can create coal seam fires along with carbon pollution. All horizontal 

fracking creates methane leaks and should be prohibited. To protect people from carbon 

pollution is only a beginning, therefore fossil-fuel extraction must be considered in terms 

of all methane producing ramifications as well. Methane adds more to global climate 

change than does carbon. 

To sum up, all carbon and methane needs to stay in the ground, whether natural gas, oil, 

or coal. To export these, which is intended, is to increase over the 30% in the clean power 

plan. We must reduce consumption and use our stockpiles judiciously while we grow 

wind, solar, and other clean energy sources. 

Pa u lu 

1 8 0 6 Mar: 0 r1 0-1- 

1,Jheolt , 73- (00187 

63c) '+6q 11643 

j i li ciniv2 3 e corn cAs-4 Au+
###### Editorial Note on Part 126

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 126 appear at 72 FR 50041, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 126.609 Can a HUBZone competition be limited or authorize preferences to small business concerns having additional socioeconomic certifications?

A procuring activity cannot restrict a HUBZone competition (for either a contract or order) to require SBA socioeconomic certifications other than HUBZone certification (*i.e.,* a competition cannot be limited only to business concerns that are both HUBZone and 8(a), HUBZone and WOSB, or HUBZone and SDVO) or give evaluation preferences to firms having one or more other certifications.

[88 FR 26212, Apr. 27, 2023]
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5336 

To reauthorize the Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for 

Mothers who deliver Infants Early Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 21, 2022 

Mr. BENNET (for himself and Ms. COLLINS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Prematurity Research Expansion and 

Education for Mothers who deliver Infants Early Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘PREEMIE Reauthor5 ization Act of 2022’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 5336 IS

1 SEC. 2. RESEARCH RELATING TO PRETERM LABOR AND DE2 LIVERY AND THE CARE, TREATMENT, AND 

3 OUTCOMES OF PRETERM AND LOW BIRTH4 WEIGHT INFANTS. 

5 Section 2(e) of the Prematurity Research Expansion 

6 and Education for Mothers who deliver Infants Early Act 

7 (42 U.S.C. 247b–4f(e)) is amended by striking ‘‘2019 

8 through 2023’’ and inserting ‘‘2024 through 2028’’. 

9 SEC. 3. PUBLIC AND HEALTH CARE PROVIDER EDUCATION 

10 AND SUPPORT SERVICES. 

11 Section 399Q(c) of the Public Health Service Act (42 

12 U.S.C. 280g–5(c)) is amended by striking ‘‘2014 through 

13 2018’’ and inserting ‘‘2024 through 2028’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Mary Nielsen et al., Appellants, v. H. Nelson Flanagan & Co., Inc., Respondent.

Present — Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ.
#### §§ 206.350-206.359 [Reserved]
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

475 Allendale Road

King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-00-10 January 26, 2000

CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610)337-5330/ e-mail: dps@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan (610)337-5331/e-mail: nas@nrc.gov

NOTE TO EDITORS:

NRC ROUNDTABLE MEETING IN PENNSVILLE, NJ, POSTPONED

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has postponed tonight’s roundtable meeting with invited

community leaders, industry representatives and members of public interest groups on the agency's

new reactor oversight process. A pilot program for the new process is currently in use at the Salem 1

and 2 and Hope Creek nuclear power plants in Hancock’s Bridge, N.J. The plants are operated by

Public Service Electric and Gas Company.

The meeting has been rescheduled for Wednesday, February 2, from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Hampton

Inn on Route 49 South (near the Delaware Memorial Bridge), in Pennsville, N.J. The roundtable

discussion portion of the meeting will be open for public observation. Members of the public will

have an opportunity to present their views to NRC officials afterward.

The NRC is seeking input from the public on the new process, which is designed to maintain

safety, improve public confidence, increase efficiency and effectiveness, and reduce unnecessary

regulatory burden. The changes reflect, in part, improvements in nuclear power plant safety

performance over the past 20 years. Plants that perform well generally will have less regulatory

oversight than plants that have problems.

#
###### Editorial Note on Part 120

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 120.1718 SBA's right to assume Seller's responsibilities.

SBA may, in its sole discretion, undertake the servicing, liquidation and/or litigation of Seller's Pool Loan at any time and, in such event, Seller must take any steps necessary to facilitate the assumption by SBA of such responsibilities, which can be transferred by SBA at its discretion to a contractor, agent or other entity, and such steps shall include, among other things, providing or assigning to SBA any documents requested by SBA within 15 calendar days of Seller's receipt of such request. SBA will notify the Obligor of the change in servicing.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 96-190 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Thursday, December 26, 1996)

NRC CONSIDERING REQUEST FROM MASSACHUSETTS

FOR 'AGREEMENT STATE' STATUS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering a request

from Massachusetts Gov. William F. Weld that Massachusetts assume

part of NRC's regulatory authority over certain nuclear

materials. If the agreement is accepted, Massachusetts will

become the 30th state to sign such an agreement with NRC.

Under the agreement, NRC would transfer to Massachusetts the

responsibility for licensing, rulemaking, inspection and

enforcement concerning the use of (1) radioactive materials

produced as byproducts of the operation of nuclear reactors; (2)

uranium and thorium source materials; and (3) small quantities of

fissionable materials.

The agreement also would allow the state to regulate the

land disposal of radioactive waste and to conduct safety

evaluations of sealed radioactive sources and devices for medical

and industrial use. The agreement, however, would not cover

regulation of tailings from uranium or thorium milling

activities.

By law, NRC retains jurisdiction over regulation of nuclear

reactors and other major nuclear facilities. It also continues

to regulate Federal agencies which use nuclear materials and

companies which distribute such materials (such as smoke

detectors) to members of the public.

If the agreement is approved, about 420 NRC licenses, most

of them for medical and industrial uses, would be transferred to

the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Before entering into the agreement, NRC must determine that

the Commonwealth's radiation control program is adequate to

protect public health and safety, and is compatible with the

agency's own program for regulating the radioactive materials

covered in the agreement.
The proposed agreement, along with an assessment of the

Massachusetts proposed regulatory program, is published for

public comment in the December 26 edition of the Federal

Register, and also will be published once each week for the next

three weeks. Comments should be sent to David L. Meyer, Chief,

Rules Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of

Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

###
Exhibit 15.5



CONSENT OF



INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-156686) of our report dated January 30, 2013, with respect to
the financial statements of Magic Software Japan K.K. included in this annual report on Form 20-F of Formula Systems (1985) Ltd.
for the year ended December 31, 2012.



| | /s/ KDA Audit Corporation
| | -------------------------
| | KDA Audit Corporation    
| | Registered Auditors      



Tokyo, Japan

May 13, 2013
#### Rick INTILE; Tom Riordan; Joseph Dickinsen, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William C. MOW, Defendant-Appellee, and Bugle Boy Industries, Inc., a California corporation; Dragon International, Inc., a foreign corporation; Roy Thorsen, Defendants.

No. 01-55476.

D.C. No. CV 97-05434-SVW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 7, 2002.

Decided May 28, 2002.

Before THOMAS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and ARMSTRONG,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs-Appellants Rick Intile, Tom Riordan, and Joseph Dickinsen (“Appellants”) appeal the district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of Defendant-Appellee William C. Mow. This *686Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Decisions confirming arbitration awards and denying vacatur are subject to *de novo*review by this Court. *Woods v. Saturn Distrib. Corp.,*78 F.Sd *424, 427*(9th Cir. 1996). *De novo*review also applies to the district court’s adoption of the legal standard governing the impartiality of the arbitrator. *Id.*However, the factual findings underlying the district court’s decision will only be reversed if there is a showing of clear error. *Id.*

Appellants contend that the initial arbitrator erred in relying on California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) § 1284.2 as the basis for requiring the parties to share the costs of the arbitration because the statute is unconstitutional under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This argument is without merit. There is no evidence that this statute is implicated because there is no evidence that the arbitrator premised his final order directing the parties to share costs on this statute. Even if CCP § 1284.2 were implicated, however, Appellants’ argument fails because the Fifth Amendment is inapplicable to private arbitrations. *See FDIC v. Air Fla. Sys., Inc.,*822 F.2d 833, 842 n. 9 (9th Cir.1987).

Next, Appellants contend that payments made by Bugle Boy Industries, Inc. (“Bugle Boy”) during the course of the arbitration should have rendered Appellants “prevailing parties” for purpose of the apportionment of costs. Since Bugle Boy is not a party to this appeal, these payments have no bearing on the apportionment of costs issue as it relates to Mow. In addition, this issue was not specifically and distinctly argued in Appellant’s opening brief, and as such, will not be considered on appeal. *See Int’l Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsman Local Union No. 20 v. Martin Jaska, Inc.,*752 F.2d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir.1985).

Finally, Appellants’ contentions that the arbitrators were biased and manifestly disregarded the law are factually and legally unsupported. *See Woods,*78 F.3d at 427-29; *Thompson v. Tega-Rand Int’l,*740 F.2d 762, 763 (9th Cir.1984) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.