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

---

Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
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 Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. (the Company)
on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Naamit Salomon,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, that to my
knowledge:

|(1) | The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
          applicable, 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date:  April 27, 2009 |  | /s/ Naamit Salomon
Naamit Salomon
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
#### § 147.301 [Reserved]
```

[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 198 (Thursday, October 14, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61067-61068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23072]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Advisory Circular 33.27-1, Turbine Rotor Strength Requirements of 
14 CFR 33.27

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of issuance of advisory circular.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the issuance of Advisory Circular (AC) 
33.27-1, Turbine Rotor Strength Requirements of 14 CFR 33.27. This AC 
sets forth acceptable methods of compliance with the provisions of the 
rotor strength (overspeed) requirements of 14 CFR 33.27.

[[Page 61068]]

DATES: Advisory Circular 33.27-1 was issued by the Engine and Propeller 
Directorate, ANE-110, on September 27, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Federal Aviation Administration, 
Attn: Timoleon Mouzakis, Engine and Propeller Standards Staff, ANE-110, 
12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone: 
(781) 238-7114; fax: (781) 238-7199; e-mail: [email protected].
    We have filed in the docket all substantive comments received, and 
a report summarizing them. If you wish to review the docket in person, 
you may go to the above address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you wish to contact the 
above individual directly, you can use the above telephone number or e-
mail address provided.
    How To Obtain Copies: A paper copy of AC 33.27-1 may be obtained by 
writing to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Subsequent 
Distribution Office, DOT Warehouse, SVC-121.23, Ardmore East Business 
Center, 3341Q 75th Ave., Landover, MD 20785, telephone 301-322-5377, or 
by faxing your request to the warehouse at 301-386-5394. The AC will 
also be available on the Internet at ``http://www.faa.gov/'', select 
``Regulations and Policies'' and the link titled ``Advisory 
Circulars''.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.)

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on September 27, 2004.
Francis A. Favara,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft 
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 04-23072 Filed 10-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
```
§ 206.115 Appeals. ( a ) Under the provisions of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5189a, applicants for assistance under this subpart may appeal any determination of eligibility for assistance made under this subpart. Applicants must file their appeal within 60 days after the date that we notify the applicant of the award or denial of assistance. Applicants may appeal the following: ( 1 ) Eligibility for assistance, including recoupment;
( 2 ) Amount or type of assistance;
( 3 ) Cancellation of an application;
( 4 ) The rejection of a late application;
( 5 ) The denial of continued assistance under § 206.114, Criteria for continued assistance;
( 6 ) FEMA's intent to collect rent from occupants of a housing unit that FEMA provides;
( 7 ) Termination of direct housing assistance;
( 8 ) Denial of a request to purchase a FEMA-provided housing unit at the termination of eligibility;
( 9 ) The sales price of a FEMA-provided housing unit they want to purchase; or
( 10 ) Any other eligibility-related decision.
( b ) Appeals must include a written explanation or verifiable documentation for the appeal and meet the requirements of § 206.117, as applicable. See §§ 206.117(b)(2)(vi), 206.117(b)(3)(iv), and 206.117(b)(4)(iii). If someone other than the applicant files the appeal, then the applicant must also submit a signed statement giving that person authority to represent them. If a written explanation is submitted, it must be signed by the applicant or a person the applicant designates to represent them.
( c ) Applicants must appeal to FEMA for decisions made under this subpart, unless FEMA has made a grant to the State to provide assistance to individuals and households under § 206.120(a), State administration of other needs assistance; then the applicant must appeal to the State.
( d ) An applicant may ask for a copy of information in his or her file by writing to FEMA or the State as appropriate. If someone other than the applicant is submitting the request, then the applicant must also submit a signed statement giving that person authority to represent them.
( e ) FEMA or the appropriate State official will review the original decision after receiving the appeal. FEMA or the State, as appropriate, will give the appellant a written notice of the disposition of the appeal and a reason for the determination within 90 days of receiving the appeal. The decision of the FEMA or State appellate authority is final.
[67 FR 61452, Sept. 30, 2002; 67 FR 62896, Oct. 9, 2002, as amended at 89 FR 4121, Jan. 22, 2024]
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site.(Historical purposes)
**Title:****Annual report**
 
2004 | 2005
 
SuDoc:ID 1.27:P 17/
Item Number: 0900-I-18(online)
CGP systemNumber:000636132
 
October 31, 2017
### §§1531 to 1537. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–220, title I, §199(b)(2), Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1059

Section 1531, Pub. L. 97–300, title I, §121, Oct. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1337; Pub. L. 99–496, §15(d), Oct. 16, 1986, 100 Stat. 1266; Pub. L. 99–570, title XI, §11004(a), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–168; Pub. L. 100–628, title VII, §714(c), Nov. 7, 1988, 102 Stat. 3256; Pub. L. 102–54, §13(k)(2)(B), June 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 277; Pub. L. 102–235, §5, Dec. 12, 1991, 105 Stat. 1807; Pub. L. 102–367, title I, §121, title VII, §702(a)(4), Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1037, 1112; Pub. L. 104–193, title I, §110(n)(3), Aug. 22, 1996, 110 Stat. 2174, related to Governor's coordination and special services plan.

Section 1532, Pub. L. 97–300, title I, §122, Oct. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1339; Pub. L. 97–404, §1(d), Dec. 31, 1982, 96 Stat. 2026; Pub. L. 98–524, §4(a)(2), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2487; Pub. L. 100–418, title VI, §6304(b), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1538; Pub. L. 102–235, §6, Dec. 12, 1991, 105 Stat. 1808; Pub. L. 102–367, title VI, §601(b)(3), title VII, §702(a)(5), Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1103, 1112, related to State job training coordinating council.

Section 1533, Pub. L. 97–300, title I, §123, Oct. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1341; Pub. L. 99–496, §§3, 15(e), Oct. 16, 1986, 100 Stat. 1261, 1266; Pub. L. 101–392, §5(a)(1), Sept. 25, 1990, 104 Stat. 758; Pub. L. 102–235, §7, Dec. 12, 1991, 105 Stat. 1808; Pub. L. 102–367, title I, §122, Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1038; Pub. L. 104–193, title I, §110(n)(4), Aug. 22, 1996, 110 Stat. 2174, related to State education coordination and grants.

Section 1534, Pub. L. 97–300, title I, §124, Oct. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1341; Pub. L. 99–496, §15(f), Oct. 16, 1986, 100 Stat. 1266; Pub. L. 102–367, title I, §123, Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1041, related to identification of additional imposed requirements.

Section 1535, Pub. L. 97–300, title I, §125, Oct. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1342; Pub. L. 97–404, §1(e), Dec. 31, 1982, 96 Stat. 2026; Pub. L. 98–524, §4(a)(3), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2487; Pub. L. 102–367, title I, §124, title VII, §702(a)(6), Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1041, 1112, related to State labor market information programs.

Section 1536, Pub. L. 97–300, title I, §126, Oct. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1343, related to authority of State legislature.

Section 1537, Pub. L. 97–300, title I, §127, Oct. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1343, related to interstate agreements.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective July 1, 2000, see section 199(c)(2)(B) of Pub. L. 105–220, set out as a note under section 1501 of this title.
Editorial Note on Part 120
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 120.812 Probationary period for newly certified CDCs. ( a ) Newly certified CDCs will be on probation for a period of two years from the date of certification, at the end of which the CDC must petition the Lead SBA Office for: ( 1 ) Permanent CDC status; or
( 2 ) A one-year extension of probation. If a one-year extension of probation is granted, at the end of this extension period, the CDC must petition the Lead SBA Office for permanent CDC status or an additional one-year extension of probation.
( b ) SBA will consider the failure to file a petition before the end of the probationary period as a withdrawal from the 504 program. If the CDC elects withdrawal, SBA will direct the CDC to transfer all funded and/or approved loans to another CDC, SBA, or another servicer approved by SBA.
( c ) The Lead SBA Office will send the petition and its recommendation to the D/FA, who will make the final decision. SBA will determine permanent CDC status or an extension of probation, in part, based upon the CDC's compliance with the certification and operational requirements in §§ 120.820 through 120.830. To be considered for permanent CDC status or an extension of probation, the CDC must have satisfactory SBA performance, as determined by SBA in its discretion. The CDC's Risk Rating, among other factors, will be considered in determining satisfactory SBA performance. Other factors may include, but are not limited to, review/examination assessments, historical performance measures, loan volume to the extent that it impacts performance measures, and other performance related measurements and information (such as contribution toward SBA mission).
( d ) SBA will notify the CDC in writing of its decision, and, if the petition is declined, the reasons for the decision. If SBA declines the petition, the CDC will no longer have authority to participate in the 504 Loan Program and SBA will direct the CDC to transfer all funded and/or approved loans to another CDC, SBA, or another servicer approved by SBA.
[68 FR 57980, Oct. 7, 2003, as amended at 73 FR 75517, Dec. 11, 2008; 82 FR 39504, Aug. 21, 2017; 87 FR 38909, June 30, 2022]
§ 361.8 Ineligible expenditures. ( a ) Expenditures for anything defined as an unallowable cost by OMB Circular A-87.
( b ) Federal funds may not be used for the purchase or rental of any equipment such as radio/telephone communications equipment, warning systems, and computers and other related information processing equipment, except as stated in § 361.7(b)(5). If a State wishes to use its matching funds for this purpose, it must: ( 1 ) Document during the annual negotiation process with FEMA how this equipment will support the earthquake hazards reduction activities in its scope of work (see § 361.7(a)); and
( 2 ) Claim as credit for its match, if the equipment is to be used for purposes in addition to support of earthquake hazards reduction activities, only that proportion of costs directly related to its earthquake hazards reduction project.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ramiro ROSALES-AGUILERA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-10590.

D.C. No. CR-00-00157-HDM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2002 *.

Decided May 28, 2002.

*647Before FERNANDEZ, RYMER and WARD LAW, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ramiro Rosales-Aguilera appeals the 84-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for unlawful reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. We affirm.

Rosales-Aguilera contends that the sentencing enhancement under section 1326(b) applies to aliens who have been removed, but not aliens who have been deported, excluded, denied admission or voluntarily departed. Therefore, the enhancement cannot apply to him because his indictment only alleged that he had been “deported.” This contention lacks merit because we have held that there is no legally significant distinction between “deportation” and “removal” for purposes of the crime defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and the enhancement under section 1326(b). *See United States v. Lopez-Gonzalez,*183 F.3d 933, 934-35 (9th Cir.1999).

Rosales-Aguilera’s contention that the district court violated his rights under Ap*prendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) because 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) describes a separate crime from subsection (a) similarly lacks merit because we have already determined that *Apprendi*did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (holding that section 1326(b)(2) describes a sentencing factor and need not be pled in the indictment as an element of a section 1326(a) offense). *See United States v. Arellano-Rivera,*244 F.3d 1119, 1127 (9th Cir.2001), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 1450, — L.Ed.2d-(2002); *United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411, 414-15 (9th Cir.2000), *cert. denied,*532 U.S. 966, 121 S.Ct. 1503, 149 L.Ed.2d 388 (2001).

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.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

61 Forsyth Street, Suite 23T85, Atlanta, GA 30303

Tel. 404-562-4416 or 4417 Fax 404-562-4980

Internet: kmc2@nrc.gov or rdh1@nrc.gov

No: II-99-43 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark or Roger Hannah (Monday, July 12, 1999)

NRC STAFF SETS ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE WITH DUKE ENERGY

TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS AT CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a predecisional enforcement

conference in Atlanta on Tuesday, July 20, to discuss with Duke Energy Corporation

apparent violations of NRC requirements related to the Unit 1 and Unit 2 ice condensers

at the Catawba Nuclear Station near York, South Carolina.

The meeting will be held at 1:00 p.m. in Bridge Conference Room D of the Sam Nunn

Atlanta Federal Center at 61 Forsyth Street. It is open to observation by interested

members of the public and news media representatives. NRC officials will be available at

its conclusion to answer questions from interested observers.

NRC officials said the apparent violations include the potential inoperability of the Unit 2

ice condenser doors due to ice buildup, the failure to promptly identify and correct ice

condenser blockage and damaged ice containers in both units, the failure to perform

adequate inspections for foreign debris in the ice condensers, and the failure to properly

install ice condenser components as designed.

Ice condensers are incorporated into some Westinghouse pressurized water reactor

containment building designs. They are constructed so that steam released during an

accident will be directed through borated ice where it is cooled and condensed. This

serves to mitigate buildup of pressure on the containment building walls.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference does not mean that a

determination has been made that violations have occurred or that enforcement action will

be taken. The purpose is to discuss the apparent violations, their causes and safety

significance; to provide the licensee with an opportunity to point out errors that may have

been made in NRC inspection reports; and to enable the licensee to outline its proposed

corrective actions.

No decision on the apparent violations or any contemplated enforcement action, such as

a civil penalty, will be made at the conference. Those decisions will be made by NRC

officials at a later time.

#
This document is located atthe FAA Hearing Docket, 600 IndependenceAvenue, SW Washington, DC 20591. This document is not publicly available; See Protective Order issued by AU Goodwin Dated December 1, 2014.
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.197 Direct costs of processing operations performed in a beneficiary country or countries. ( a ) *Items included in the direct costs of processing operations.* As used in §§ 10.195 and 10.198, the words “direct costs of processing operations” mean those costs either directly incurred in, or which can be reasonably allocated to, the growth, production, manufacture, or assembly of the specific merchandise under consideration. Such costs include, but are not limited to the following, to the extent that they are includable in the appraised value of the imported merchandise: ( 1 ) All actual labor costs involved in the growth, production, manufacture or assembly of the specific merchandise, including fringe benefits, on-the-job training, and the cost of engineering, supervisory, quality control, and similar personnel;
( 2 ) Dies, molds, tooling, and depreciation on machinery and equipment which are allocable to the specific merchandise;
( 3 ) Research, development, design, engineering, and blueprint costs insofar as they are allocable to the specific merchandise and;
( 4 ) Costs of inspecting and testing the specific merchandise.
( b ) *Items not included in the direct costs of processing operations.* Those items which are not included within the meaning of the words “direct costs of processing operations” are those which are not directly attributable to the merchandise under consideration or are not “costs” of manufacturing the product. These include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Profit; and
( 2 ) General expenses of doing business which are either not allocable to the specific merchandise or are not related to the growth, production, manufacture, or assembly of the merchandise, such as administrative salaries, casualty and liability insurance, advertising, and salesmen's salaries, commissions, or expenses.
[T.D. 84-237, 49 FR 47993, Dec. 7, 1984; 49 FR 49575, Dec. 20, 1984]
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-98-43 April 24, 1998

Contact: Diane Screnci (610/337-5330) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS AT ALTOONA (PA.) HOSPITAL

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with

officials of Altoona Hospital (Pa.) on Thursday, April 30, to

discuss several apparent violations of agency requirements

involving the medical use of NRC-licensed radioactive materials.

The predecisional enforcement conference is scheduled to

begin at 1 p.m. in the Division of Nuclear Materials Safety

Conference Room at the NRC Region 1 office in King of Prussia,

Pa. It will be open to the public for observation.

During an inspection conducted at the hospital on March 9

and 10, the NRC identified the following apparent violations: a

lack of security for radioactive materials, inadequate training

of nuclear medicine technologists and several instances in which

radiopharmaceuticals were administered to patients without the

required written prescription.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement

conference does not mean that the NRC has determined a violation

has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. Rather,

the purpose is to discuss apparent violations, their causes and

safety significance; to provide the licensee with an opportunity

to point out any errors that may have been made in the NRC

inspection report; and to enable the licensee to outline its

proposed corrective action.

No decision on the apparent violations will be made at

this conference. That decision will be made by NRC officials at

a later time.

#

ˇˇ
### **CHAPTER 22B—HUNGER FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM**

Sec.
1161.
Bill Emerson National Hunger Fellows and Mickey Leland International Hunger Fellows.
### §101. Issuance of restraining orders and injunctions; limitation; public policy

No court of the United States, as defined in this chapter, shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in a case involving or growing out of a labor dispute, except in a strict conformity with the provisions of this chapter; nor shall any such restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction be issued contrary to the public policy declared in this chapter.

(Mar. 23, 1932, ch. 90, §1, 47 Stat. 70.)

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

#### Short Title

Act Mar. 23, 1932, ch. 90, 47 Stat. 70, which enacted this chapter, is popularly known as the "Norris-LaGuardia Act".
### §1202a. Employee plans compliance resolution system

#### (a) In general

The Secretary of the Treasury shall have full authority to establish and implement the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (or any successor program) and any other employee plans correction policies, including the authority to waive income, excise, or other taxes to ensure that any tax, penalty, or sanction is not excessive and bears a reasonable relationship to the nature, extent, and severity of the failure.

#### (b) Improvements

The Secretary of the Treasury shall continue to update and improve the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (or any successor program), giving special attention to—

(1) increasing the awareness and knowledge of small employers concerning the availability and use of the program;

(2) taking into account special concerns and circumstances that small employers face with respect to compliance and correction of compliance failures;

(3) extending the duration of the self-correction period under the Self-Correction Program for significant compliance failures;

(4) expanding the availability to correct insignificant compliance failures under the Self-Correction Program during audit; and

(5) assuring that any tax, penalty, or sanction that is imposed by reason of a compliance failure is not excessive and bears a reasonable relationship to the nature, extent, and severity of the failure.

(Pub. L. 109–280, title XI, §1101, Aug. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 1055.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, and not as part of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 which comprises this chapter.