alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 923.25 Shoreline erosion/mitigation planning. ( a ) The management program must include a planning process for assessing the effects of, and studying and evaluating ways to control, or lessen the impact of, shoreline erosion, including potential impacts of sea level rise, and to restore areas adversely affected by such erosion. This planning process may be within the broader context of coastal hazard mitigation planning.
( b ) The basic purpose in developing this planning process is to give special attention to erosion issues. This special management attention may be achieved by designating erosion areas as areas of particular concern pursuant to § 923.21 or as areas for preservation or restoration pursuant to § 923.22.
( c ) The management program must include an identification and description of enforceable policies, legal authorities, funding techniques and other techniques that will be used to manage the effects of erosion, including potential impacts of sea level rise, as the state's planning process indicates is necessary.
[61 FR 33806, June 28, 1996; 61 FR 36965, July 15, 1996]
#### Herbert L. J. Partridge, Appellant, v. Mary W. P. Partridge, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION





Each of
the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63
of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Horne
International, Inc. (“Horne”), that, to the best of his knowledge and belief,
the Annual Report of Horne on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 28,
2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operation of Horne.


Date:
      May 12, 2010
                By:
                /s/
      Darryl
      K. HorneDarryl
      K. HornePresident
      and Chief Executive Officer


Date:
      May 12, 2010
                By:
                /s/
      Paige
      E. SHANNONPAIGE
      E. SHANNONInterim
      Chief Financial Officer




This
written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
as an exhibit to such Form 10-Q. A signed original of this statement has been
provided to Horne and will be retained by Horne and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
#### Mark Finkelstein et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Warner Music Group Inc. et al., Appellants-Respondents.

[820 NYS2d 264]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered February 21, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the first and ninth causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation and aiding and abetting such misrepresentations, and granted such motion to the extent of dismissing the derivative claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty asserted in the second, seventh and eighth causes of action, unanimously modified, on the law, the motion granted dismissing the first and ninth causes of action, and otherwise affirmed, with costs in favor of defendants.

The corporate plaintiff was described by its principal, plaintiff Finkelstein, and other employees, as a “sophisticated” and “successful player” in the dance music industry when it came to licensing, and “well experienced in licensing material for these types of compilations.” In the year prior to entering into the joint venture with defendants, it derived approximately one half to two thirds of its revenue from advances and royalties paid in connection with the licenses it granted to third parties for the use of its recordings. During the year-long negotiations *345conducted on the corporation’s behalf solely by Mr. Finkelstein, when the parties dealt at arm’s length and there was no relationship of trust and confidence (see our prior decision, 14 AD3d 415, 416 [2005]), plaintiffs admittedly made no due diligence inquiries of Warner or other parties about Warner’s alleged policy regarding licensing of recordings to third-party compilers, even though the manner in which the joint venture would license its dance repertoire was admittedly one of the most important parts of the deal. Given such circumstances, plaintiffs have failed to show any justifiable basis for relying on defendants’ failure to disclose their third-party licensing policy *(see Shea v Hambros PLC,*244 AD2d 39, 46-47 [1998]) sufficient to defeat defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment.

Nonparty Strictly Rhythm Records LLC (SRR) clearly released its claims against defendants. Summary dismissal of those portions of the second, seventh and eighth causes of action that asserted derivative claims on behalf of SRR was appropriate. Since SRR is a Delaware limited liability company, the question of whether plaintiffs’ claims are derivative is governed by Delaware law, not New York law *(see e.g. Burghart v Landau,*821 F Supp 173, 176 [SD NY 1993], *affd*9 F3d 1538 [2d Cir 1993], *cert denied*510 US 1196 [1994]). Concur— Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan, Nardelli and Malone, JJ.
§ 141.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This regulation provides procedures for the collection by administrative offset of a federal employee's salary without his/her consent to satisfy certain debts owed to the federal government. These regulations apply to employees of other federal agencies and current employees of the Commission who owe debts to the Commission and to current employees of the Commission who owe debts to other federal agencies. This regulation does not apply when the employee consents to recovery from his/her current pay account.
( b ) This regulation does not apply to debts or claims arising under: ( 1 ) The Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, 26 U.S.C. 1 *et seq.*;
( 2 ) The Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 301 *et seq.*;
( 3 ) The tariff laws of the United States; or
( 4 ) Any case where a collection of a debt by salary offset is explicitly provided for or prohibited by another statute.
( c ) This regulation does not apply to any adjustment to pay arising out of an employee's selection of coverage or a change in coverage under a federal benefits program requiring periodic deductions from pay if the amount to be recovered was accumulated over four pay periods or less.
( d ) This regulation does not preclude the compromise, suspension, or termination of collection action where appropriate under the standards implementing the Federal Claims Collection Act, 31 U.S.C. 3711 *et seq.*, 4 CFR parts 101 through 105, 45 CFR part 1177.
( e ) This regulation does not preclude an employee from requesting waiver of an overpayment under 5 U.S.C. 5584, 10 U.S.C. 2774 or 32 U.S.C. 716 or in any way questioning the amount or validity of the debt by submitting a subsequent claim to the General Accounting Office in accordance with General Accounting Office procedures. This regulation does not preclude an employee from requesting a waiver pursuant to other statutory provisions applicable to the particular debt being collected. Neither the requesting of a waiver nor the filing of a claim with the General Accounting Office will affect the amount or validity of the debt being collected until a waiver has been granted or the debt has been determined to be for an incorrect amount or invalid.
( f ) Matters not addressed in these regulations should be reviewed in accordance with the Federal Claims Collection Standards at 4 CFR 101.1 *et seq.*
NRC APPROVES INCREASED POWER OUTPUT

FOR POINT BEACH NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved a request by NextEra Energy to

increase the generating capacity of both Units 1 and 2 at the Point Beach Nuclear Plant by 17

percent.

The NRC staff determined that NextEra could safely increase the reactors’ output 

primarily by carrying out significant upgrades to several plant systems and components, 

including safety-related pumps and valves, as well as the turbine-generator set. NRC staff also 

reviewed NextEra’s evaluations showing the plant’s design can handle the increased power level.

The NRC’s safety evaluation of the plant’s proposed power uprate focused on several

areas, such as the nuclear steam supply systems, instrumentation and control systems, electrical

systems, accident evaluations, radiological consequences, operations and training, testing, and

technical specification changes. For added confidence in the analysis, the NRC staff also

conducted independent calculations and evaluations of selected areas.

The power uprate for Point Beach Units 1 and 2, approximately 13 miles northwest of 

Manitowoc, Wisc., authorizes an increase of each reactor’s generating capacity from 

approximately 512 to 600 megawatts electric. NextEra is implementing the uprate for Unit 2 

during its current refueling outage, and intends to implement the uprate for Unit 1 during its fall 

2011 refueling outage.

The NRC previously published a notice about the power uprate application in the Federal 

Register (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-28963.pdf, page 70305), providing the 

public an opportunity to comment or request a hearing. The agency’s evaluation of the Point 

Beach power uprate will be available through the NRC’s ADAMS electronic document database

by entering ML110450159 under the “Simple Search” tab. More information on uprates is 

available on the NRC website. 

###

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's website.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

E-mail: opa.resource@nrc.gov Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No. 11-075 May 3, 2011
### §1311. Public assistance payments to legal representatives

For purposes of subchapters I, X, XIV, and XVI, and part A of subchapter IV, payments on behalf of an individual, made to another person who has been judicially appointed, under the law of the State in which such individual resides, as legal representative of such individual for the purpose of receiving and managing such payments (whether or not he is such individual's legal representative for other purposes), shall be regarded as money payments to such individual.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XI, §1111, as added Pub. L. 85–840, title V, §511(a), Aug. 28, 1958, 72 Stat. 1051; amended Pub. L. 87–543, title I, §141(d), July 25, 1962, 76 Stat. 205; Pub. L. 90–248, title II, §241(c)(3), Jan. 2, 1968, 81 Stat. 917.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1968—Pub. L. 90–248 struck out "IV," after "I," and inserted "and part A of subchapter IV," after "XVI,".

1962—Pub. L. 87–543 inserted reference to subchapter XVI.

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 85–840, title V, §511(b), Aug. 28, 1958, 72 Stat. 1052, provided that: "The amendment made by subsection (a) [enacting this section] shall be applicable in the case of payments to legal representatives by any State made after June 30, 1958; and to such payments by any State made after December 31, 1955, and prior to July 1, 1958, if certifications for payment to such State have been made by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare [now Health and Human Services] with respect thereto, or such State has presented to the Secretary a claim (and such other data as the Secretary may require) with respect thereto, prior to July 1, 1959."
#### L. B. EVERETT, movant, v. Walter BRUCKERT, opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 23, 1948.

Lillian B. Everett, in pro. per.

James Boswell Young opposed.

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court, Common Pleas Branch, 2nd Division; B. H. Farnsley, Judge. ,

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s motion to file additional record is sustained. She sought judgment against appellee for $288.75, but the court »denied recovery and dismissed her petition.

Her motion for an appeal is denied and judgment affirmed.
§ 141.5 Hearing. ( a ) *Request for hearing.* ( 1 ) An employee must file a petition for a hearing in accordance with the instructions outlined in the Commission's notice to offset.
( 2 ) A hearing may be requested by filing a written petition addressed to the Executive Director stating why the employee disputes the existence or amount of the debt. The petition for a hearing must be received by the Executive Director no later than fifteen (15) calendar days after the date of the notice to offset unless the employee can show good cause for failing to meet the deadline date.
( b ) *Hearing procedures.* ( 1 ) The hearing will be presided over by an impartial hearing official.
( 2 ) The hearing shall conform to procedures contained in the Federal Claims Collection Standards 4 CFR 102.3(c). The burden shall be on the employee to demonstrate that the existence or the amount of the debt is in error.
**GAO-02-984R**                      Published: Jul 26, 2002. Publicly Released: Jul 26, 2002.                  

-   
-   
-   
-   

    Jump To:  
-  Elder Abuse 
-  Services for Older Adults 
-  State and Local-Level Drivers and Trends 
-  State and Local Fiscal Projections 
-  Federal Borrowing 
-  Managing the Debt 
-  Summary of Funding Provisions 
-  Auditing the Government's Books 
-  Unpacking the Financial Report 
-  Highlights 
-  Recommendations 
-  Background 
-  About This Work 
-  About This Work 
-  Trends 
-  About the Center 
-  Why It's High Risk 
-  What Remains To Be Done 
-  Key Reports 
-  Newest COVID-Related Reports 
-  AI Use Cases 
-  Flood Insurance 
-  Past Pandemic-Related Reports 
-  CARES Act Oversight Reports 
-  All COVID-19 Reports 
-  Report Suspected Fraud 
-  Subjects 
-  How to Get Notified 
-  Past Reports 
-  Public Health Threats 
-  Explore the FY 2022 and 2023 Funds 
-  Status of FY22 Projects 
-  Lessons Learned 
-  Agency Reports 
-  Recent Reports 
-  Recommendations 
-  Supplemental Material 
-  Full Report 
-  Additional Data 
-  View Decision 
-  Downloads 
-  Previously Identified Actions 
-  Related Pages 
-  Associated Agencies 
-  Tough Choices and Opportunities Ahead 
-  Americas Fiscal Future Key Areas 
-  Retirement Security Key Areas 
-  Current List 
-  About The High Risk List 
-  Area Ratings 
-  Previous High Risk Products 
-  Search Federal Vacancies 
-  Past Federal Vacancies 
-  Violation Letters 
-  About the Yellow Book 
-  Advisory Council 
-  Related Resources 
-  Comment Letters 
-  Related Publications 
-  Contacts and Resources 
-  Major Issues Facing the Nation 
-  Meeting Strategic Challenges 
-  Additional Resources 
-  Resources 
-  GAO Contacts 
-  Mission Teams 
-  Operations and Staff Offices  
-  Organization Chart  
-  Why a Career at GAO? 
-  Am I Qualified? 
-  Company Culture 
-  Reasonable Accommodations 
-  Video Gallery 
-  Paid Internships 
-  Student Volunteers 
-  Professional Development Program 
-  Advancement 
-  Executive Candidate Program 
-  Summer Associates 
-  Externships 
-  Benefits 
-  Contacts 

Skip to Highlights

## Highlights

GAO reviewed the audit report covering the financial statements for the Marine Corps League for fiscal years 2000 and 2001. GAO found no reportable instances of noncompliance. The audit reports included the auditors' opinions that the financial statements of the corporation were presented fairly in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

## Full Report

Full Report (2 pages)

Accessible Text 

## Office of Public Affairs

### Media Inquiries

Sarah Kaczmarek
kaczmareks@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

### Public Inquiries

Public Affairs
PublicAffairs@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

## Topics

Auditing and Financial Management

Financial statement auditsAccounting standardsFederal corporationsAudit reportsReporting requirementsFinancial statementsMilitary forcesFederally chartered corporationFinancial managementRegulatory noncompliance
#### Ellen S. Elian, by Her Guardian ad Litem, Benjamin M. Elian, et al., Appellants, v. Lyn Realty Corp., Respondent.

Order appealed from reversed without costs and motion to set aside dismissal granted upon condition that plaintiffs file new note of issue and pay another calendar fee, the case to be added to the Day Calendar for a day certain. All concur. In the circumstances shown here, the motion to set aside the dismissal should have been granted on appropriate terms. Settle order. Present — Cohn, J. P., Callahan, Breitel, Botein and Rabin, JJ.
### SUBCHAPTER III—ENERGY SAVINGS IN BUILDINGS AND INDUSTRY
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 69398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26225]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--PICMG-PCI Industrial Computer Manufacturers 
Group, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 20, 2004, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et. seq. (``the Act''), PICMG-PCI Industrial 
Computer Manufacturers Group, Inc. (``PICMG'') has filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of 
business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature 
and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications 
were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting 
the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances.
    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: PICMG-PCI 
Industrial Computer Manufacturers Group, Inc., Wakefield, MA. The 
nature and scope of PICMG's standards development activities are: the 
development and design of open and neutral computer system standards, 
and performing related research and experimentation in, and 
implementation of, system standards and technology.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-26225 Filed 11-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### §§ 502.200-502.299 [Reserved]
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
ACRO Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Yami Tarsi, the Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

(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
result of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 17, 2006

/s/ Yami TarsiYami TarsiChief Executive
Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

---
### SUBCHAPTER I—MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS, DEVELOPMENT, AND UTILIZATION
Issue Date: 07/29/16 1 16-019 

 NRC INSPECTION MANUAL DIRS 

Change Notice 16-019

 DELETED: TRANSMITTED: 

 Number Date Number Date 

1. IMC 1201 10/28/11 IMC 1201 07/29/16 

2. 

TRAINING: No 

REMARKS: IMC 1201, “Conduct of Employees,” is being issued as an editorial change to 

correct hyperlinks and formatting. 

DISTRIBUTION: 

 Standard 

 Official Use Only (OUO)-Security Related Information. 

 Please contact: _______________ Phone: ________ 

END
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-53,871] 

Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on December 23, 2003, in response to a worker petition filed by a state agency on behalf of workers at PolyOne, Inc., Burlington, New Jersey. 

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of January, 2004. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 04-2614 Filed 2-5-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
#### In the Matter of Mitchell R. Bienen, Respondent, against A Motion Term of the County Court, Nassau County, et al., Defendants, and Alberta L. Salazar, et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, an order of prohibition was made restraining the Acting County Judge of Nassau County, the supervisors of the town of Hempstead, and appellants (taxpayers) from making or causing an order to be entered on a determination made by said County Judge granting the application of appellants to direct the supervisors to reopen the hearing had in the matter of the incorporation of the Village of Atlantic Beach. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs and without prejudice to the prosecution of the appeals theretofore taken to the County Court from the decision of the supervisors that the proposition, consent and papers filed therewith comply with the provisions of the Village Law. The determination of the County Court was made in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. In the exercise of that jurisdiction the County Court did not have the power to direct that the supervisors reopen the hearing. We pass upon no other question. Present — Lewis, P. J., Cars-well, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.