alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 89 FR 71806, Sept. 4, 2024.

§ 3.42 Termination. ( a ) A temporary license issued pursuant to § 3.40 shall terminate: ( 1 ) Five days after service upon the applicant of a notice by the Commission or the National Futures Association pursuant to § 3.60 of this part that the applicant for registration may be found subject to a statutory disqualification from registration;
( 2 ) Immediately upon termination of the association of the applicant for registration as an associated person with the registrant which filed the sponsorship certification, or immediately upon loss of trading privileges by an applicant for registration as a floor broker or floor trader on all contract markets and swap execution facilities which filed the certification described in § 3.40;
( 3 ) Immediately upon the withdrawal of the registration application pursuant to § 3.40;
( 4 ) Immediately upon failure to comply with an order to pay a civil monetary penalty, restitution, or disgorgement within the time permitted under sections 6(e), 6b, or 6c(d) of the Act;
( 5 ) Immediately upon failure to pay the full amount of a reparation order within the time permitted under section 14(f) of the Act;
( 6 ) Immediately upon failure to comply with an award in an arbitration proceeding conducted pursuant to the rules of a designated contract market, swap execution facility or registered futures association within the time specified in section 10(g) of the National Futures Association's Code of Arbitration or the comparable time period specified in the rules of a contract market or other appropriate arbitration forum.
( 7 ) Immediately upon the revocation or withdrawal of the registration of the applicant's sponsor; or
( 8 ) Immediately upon notice to the applicant and the applicant's sponsor or the contract market or swap execution facility that has granted the applicant trading privileges that: ( i ) The applicant failed to disclose relevant disciplinary history information on the applicant's Form 8-R; or
( ii ) An event has occurred leading to a required disclosure on the applicant's Form 8-R.
( b ) Upon termination, the applicant may not engage in any activity which requires registration with the Commission as an associated person, floor broker or floor trader.
[49 FR 8219, Mar. 5, 1984, as amended at 57 FR 23151, June 2, 1992; 58 FR 19594, Apr. 15, 1993; 67 FR 38876, June 6, 2002; 77 FR 51908, Aug. 28, 2012]
### §2240. Licensee incident reports as evidence

No report by any licensee of any incident arising out of or in connection with a licensed activity made pursuant to any requirement of the Commission shall be admitted as evidence in any suit or action for damages growing out of any matter mentioned in such report.

(Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title I, §190, as added Pub. L. 87–206, §16, Sept. 6, 1961, 75 Stat. 479; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 102–486, title IX, §902(a)(8), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2944.)
§ 37.200 Core Principle 2—Compliance with rules. A swap execution facility shall: ( a ) Establish and enforce compliance with any rule of the swap execution facility, including the terms and conditions of the swaps traded or processed on or through the swap execution facility and any limitation on access to the swap execution facility;
( b ) Establish and enforce trading, trade processing, and participation rules that will deter abuses and have the capacity to detect, investigate, and enforce those rules, including means to provide market participants with impartial access to the market and to capture information that may be used in establishing whether rule violations have occurred;
( c ) Establish rules governing the operation of the facility, including rules specifying trading procedures to be used in entering and executing orders traded or posted on the facility, including block trades; and
( d ) Provide by its rules that when a swap dealer or major swap participant enters into or facilitates a swap that is subject to the mandatory clearing requirement of section 2(h) of the Act, the swap dealer or major swap participant shall be responsible for compliance with the mandatory trading requirement under section 2(h)(8) of the Act.
Exhibit 32.1

                                CERTIFICATIONS OF
                      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND TREASURER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


            In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Capital
Beverage Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2006
(the " Report"), I, Carmine N. Stella, hereby certify in my capacity as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge and belief:

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

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



Dated:  November 10, 2006        By:  /s/ Carmine N. Stella
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Carmine N. Stella
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer
                                      (Principal Executive Officer)


            In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Capital
Beverage Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2006
(the " Report"), I, Carol Russell, hereby certify in my capacity as Treasurer of
the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and
belief:

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

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



Dated:  November 10, 2006        By:  /s/ Carol Russell
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Carol Russell
                                      Secretary and Treasurer (Principal
                                      Financial Officer and Accounting Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. John W. Lenox, Respondent, *v.*The Board of Education of the City of New York, Appellant.

Appeal from an order granting to relator an alternative writ of mandamus.

Per Curiam:

We are of the opinion that no issues are raised requiring the issuance of any writ. The order appealed from is, therefore, reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs to the appellant. Present—Clarke, P. J., Scott, Dowling, Smith and Page, JJ. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
#### Seventeenth Ward Building and Loan Association et al., appellees, v. Sarah Julius et al., on appeal of Ellen L. McClane, appellant.

Gen. No. 27,605.

Petition that certain moneys in the hands of a receiver in a fore*598closure proceeding be paid to petitioner. Petition denied. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Oscar M. Torrison, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed. October 30, 1922.

James Booth MeClane, for appellant. Max A. Drezmal and Ewart Harris, for appellees.

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### In the Matter of William A. Moreau, Appellant, v King J. Weyant, Jr., WeyMayor of the Village of Highland Falls, et al., Respondents

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to review a determination which dismissed petitioner from his position as a police officer in the Police Department of the Village of Highland Falls, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County, entered June 10, 1976, *797which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. There was substantial evidence to support respondents’ determination. Damiani, J. P., Suozzi, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of George McPhatter, Appellant, against Joseph D. McGoldrick, as State Rent Administrator, et al., Respondents.

No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
P.1 

OAR Box 1802 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

77) IV-E-71 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/4/200811:58:00 AM Sheet 77 of 117 
P.2 

A^o^i 

iv-e- n 

July 31,2000 

SUBJECT: September 24, 1998 Meeting Between the Clean Energy Group and the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

FROM: Dennis Crumpler 

Integrated Implementation Group, ITPID, MD-12 

TO: Air and Radiation Docket # A-90-37 

The Clean Energy Group requested this meeting to provide feedback to EPA on the 

July 24,1998 Federal Register Notice of Availability requesting further comment on NSR 

applicability for utilities and plant wide applicability limits. They also expressed some ideas on 

trading schemes for the utility industry. The Clean Energy Group was supportive of a lookback 

period of less than 10 years to establish actual emissions. Their view was that the energy 

industry is in a state of rapid change. They have already made investments in new more efficient 

and less polluting production capacity. They believe this is the right direction for the future and 

support regulations and trading programs that would keep competition for generating electricity 

fair. 

Greg Foote, OGC, EPA 

Jon Devine, OGC, EPA 

Michael Bradley, Michael Bradley Associates 

Anne Berwick, Michael Bradley Associates 

Anna Wood, OPAR, OAR, EPA 

Jeff Williams 

Bruce Alexander 

Bob Ketes 

Dennis Crumpler, ITPID, OAQPS, OAR, 

EPA 

Tom Syvester 

Carol Holmes, AED, OECA, EPA 

Janet McDonald, EC/R, EPA Contractor 

Steve Edgerton, EC/R, EPA Contractor 

Mark Brandstein 

Bob Kellam, Acting Director, ITPID, 

OAQPS, OAR, EPA 

Chuck Karlan, Northeast utilities 

Joel Meakas, Niagara Mohawk 

David Solomon, ITPID, OAQPS, OAR, EPA
[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. 
**Title:**Militaryveterinary services

 
PDF|EPUB |MOBI |
 
SuDoc Number:D 104.35:V 64
Item Number:0352-F-02 (online)
System Number:001100958
August 15, 2019
#### § 38.257 Regulatory service provider.

A designated contract market must comply with the regulations in this subpart through a dedicated regulatory department, or by delegation of that function to a registered futures association or a registered entity (collectively, “regulatory service provider”), as such terms are defined in the Act and over which the designated contract market has supervisory authority.
ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0306

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

PAMELA JO POLEJEWSKI,

Defendant and Appellant.

FILED

JUL 0 8 2020

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of Suprerne Court

tate. of Montana

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on appeal by Pamela Jo Polejewski from the Eighth

Judicial District Court, Honorable Greg Pinski presiding. Appellant Pamela Jo Polejewski

appears as a self-represented litigant in a civil forfeiture proceeding. Appellee Cascade

County Attorney's Office is the opposing party on behalf of the State of Montana.

Upon review of the issue challenging the constitutionality of § 27-1-434, MCA, this

Court has determined that this case qualifies for referral to the Appellate Pro Bono Program.

However, volunteer counsel, should the person come forward, would be drafting a friend of

the court brief. This Court has determined that its review of the matter could benefit from an

amicus curiae brief drafted by pro bono legal counsel on this issue. Accordingly, the case

will be referred for participation in the Court's Appellate Pro Bono Program. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the case is referred to the Montana Supreme Court's Pro Bono

Coordinator to recruit a volunteer, pro bono legal counsel who would then file a Notice of

Appearance on or before July 31, 2020. Additionally, the volunteer counsel would prepare,

file, and serve an amicus curiae brief articulating the constitutionality of § 27-1-434, MCA,

facially and as applied, from the Appellant's perspective in this matter, on or before 

September 8, 2020. Some of the applicable procedures set forth in the Court's May 22, 2012

Order establishing the Appellate Pro Bono Program will govern.

07/08/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0306
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to Appellant, to counsel of

record, to the Court's Pro Se Law Clerk, and to the Pro Bono Coordinator, Patty Fain.

DATED this day of July, 2020.

Chief Justice

e

Justices

2
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Glennis L. Peterson, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[819 NYS2d 353]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 27, 2005, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from her employment as a sandwich production person when she refused a manager’s request that she report to another of the employer’s locations to run sandwich production and assist with preclosing duties. Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge found that claimant’s refusal to comply with the directive was without good cause and denied her application for unemployment insurance benefits because she was terminated due to disqualifying misconduct. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board upheld the determination and claimant now appeals.

Whether an employee has been terminated for disqualifying misconduct is a factual issue for the Board to decide and its determination will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence *(see Matter of Smith [New Venture Gear*—Commissioner *of Labor],*278 AD2d 634, 634 [2000]; *Matter of Padilla [Sephardic Home for the Aged*—Roberts], 113 AD2d 997, 997 [1985]). An employee’s insubordinate conduct in refusing to comply with an employer’s reasonable request can constitute disqualifying misconduct *(see Matter of Daniul [Commissioner of Labor], 25*AD3d 1061, 1061-1062 [2006]; *Matter of Francano [Commissioner of Labor],*12 AD3d 768, 768 [2004]). Here, claimant testified that her refusal was based upon her knowledge that the duties required at the other location would exceed her medical restrictions. However, claimant admitted that she refused to speak with the manager at the other location or a senior *611manager at her primary location despite the opportunity to do so and several warnings that her failure to comply would result in termination of her employment. Thus, she failed to take reasonable steps to comply with her employer’s request or to protect her employment *(see Matter of Mercure [Commissioner of Labor],*27 AD3d 857, 857 [2006]; *Matter of West [Commissioner of Labor],*2 AD3d 1251, 1252 [2003]; *Matter of Gorton [Genesee County Ch. NYSARC*—Commissioner *of Labor],*1 AD3d 682, 682 [2003]).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
### §2140. Exclusions from license requirement

Nothing in this subchapter shall be deemed—

(a) to require a license for (1) the processing, fabricating, or refining of special nuclear material, or the separation of special nuclear material, or the separation of special nuclear material from other substances, under contract with and for the account of the Commission; or (2) the construction or operation of facilities under contract with and for the account of the Commission; or

(b) to require a license for the manufacture, production, or acquisition by the Department of Defense of any utilization facility authorized pursuant to section 2121 of this title, or for the use of such facility by the Department of Defense or a contractor thereof.

(Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title I, §110, as added Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 939; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 102–486, title IX, §902(a)(8), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2944.)
### §2756a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 2756a, originally enacted as section 447 of Pub. L. 89–329, was transferred to section 1087–57 of Title 20, Education.
### §2373. Transfer to governmental or other legal entity; determination of transferee

(a) Transfer may be made to one or more of the following, if the transferee has the legal authority to receive and operate the utility.

(1) the city at the community;

(2) the State in which the community is located;

(3) any political subdivision or agency of that State; or

(4) any person, firm, corporation, or other legal entity.

(b) In determining the transferee for any utility, the Commission may consider the following:

(1) the pattern of ownership of the comparable utilities in the State in which the community is located;

(2) the ability of the transferee to operate the utility;

(3) the probable price of the sale of the utility, the ability of the transferee to pay that price, and any probable expense;

(4) the desires of the eligible voters of the community as directly expressed in any vote in any officially recognized procedure or in any procedure established by the Commission; and

(5) the benefit to the United States in reducing possible requirements for local assistance as authorized in subchapters VII and VIII of this chapter.

(Aug. 4, 1955, ch. 543, ch. 7, §73, 69 Stat. 480.)

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

#### Transfer of Functions

Atomic Energy Commission abolished and functions transferred by sections 5814 and 5841 of this title. See also Transfer of Functions notes set out under those sections.
###### Editorial Note on Part 240

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 240.15Fb2-3 Amendments to Form SBSE, Form SBSE-A, and Form SBSE-BD.

If a security-based swap dealer or a major security-based swap participant finds that the information contained in its Form SBSE (§ 249.1600 of this chapter), Form SBSE-A (§ 249.1600a of this chapter), or Form SBSE-BD (§ 249.1600b of this chapter), as appropriate, or in any amendment thereto, is or has become inaccurate for any reason, the security-based swap dealer or a major security-based swap participant shall promptly file an amendment electronically with the Commission through the Commission's EDGAR system on the appropriate Form to correct such information.
3427.409 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.       (a) The contracting officer must insert the clause at 3452.227–70 (Publication and publicity) in all solicitations and contracts other than purchase orders.          (b) The contracting officer must insert the clause at 3452.227–71 (Advertising of awards) in all solicitations and contracts other than purchase orders.          (c) The contracting officer must insert the clause at 3452.227–72 (Use and non-disclosure agreement) in all contracts over the simplified acquisition threshold, and in contracts under the simplified acquisition threshold, as appropriate.          (d) The contracting officer must insert the clause at 3452.227–73 (Limitations on the use or disclosure of Government-furnished information marked with restrictive legends) in all contracts of third party vendors who require access to Government-furnished information including other contractors' technical data, proprietary information, or software.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 3427.4—Rights in Data and Copyrights
§ 41.21 Requirements for underlying securities. ( a ) *Security futures products based on a single security.* A futures contract on a single security is eligible to be traded as a security futures product only if: ( 1 ) The underlying security is registered pursuant to section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
( 2 ) The underlying security is: ( i ) Common stock,
( ii ) Such other equity security as the Commission and the SEC jointly deem appropriate, or
( iii ) A note, bond, debenture, or evidence of indebtedness; and
( 3 ) The underlying security conforms with the listing standards for the security futures product that the designated contract market has filed with the SEC under section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
( b ) *Security futures product based on two or more securities.* A futures contract on an index of two or more securities is eligible to be traded as a security futures product only if: ( 1 ) The index is a narrow-based security index as defined in section 1a(35) of the Act;
( 2 ) The securities in the index are registered pursuant to section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
( 3 ) The securities in the index are: ( i ) Common stock,
( ii ) Such other equity securities as the Commission and the SEC jointly deem appropriate, or
( iii ) A note, bond, debenture, or evidence of indebtedness; and
( 4 ) The index conforms with the listing standards for the security futures product that the designated contract market has filed with the SEC under section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
[66 FR 55083, Nov. 1, 2001, as amended at 71 FR 39542, July 13, 2006; 77 FR 66344, Nov. 2, 2012]
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Esther Bright, Deceased. Delia Hancock et al., Appellants; Louise B. Morgan, Respondent.

Decree unanimously affirmed, without costs to either party. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Eager and Bergan, JJ. [20 Misc 2d 789.]
§ 802.52 Acquisitions by or from foreign governmental entities. An acquisition shall be exempt from the requirements of the act if: ( a ) The ultimate parent entity of either the acquiring person or the acquired person is controlled by a foreign state, foreign government, or agency thereof; and
( b ) The acquisition is of assets located within that foreign state or of voting securities or non-corporate interests of an entity organized under the laws of that state.
Example: The government of foreign country X has decided to sell assets of its wholly owned corporation, B, all of which are located in foreign country X. The buyer is “A,” a U.S. person. Regardless of the aggregate sales in or into the United States attributable to the assets of B, the transaction is exempt under this section. (If such aggregate sales were $50 million (as adjusted) or less, the transaction would also be exempt under § 802.50).
[43 FR 33544, July 31, 1978, as amended at 67 FR 11904, Mar. 18, 2002; 70 FR 4996, Jan. 31, 2005; 76 FR 42482, July 19, 2011]