alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 19.6-7 Decision. ( a ) When a response has not been received by PER/ER/RET from a principal within the 30-day period under § 19.6-6a, payment will be made in accordance with the notification. When a response is received, the Chief, PER/ER/RET will consider the response. If it is shown that a court order is not qualifying or that a divorce is not valid under terms of the Act and these regulations, payment proposed in the notification will not be made. In such a case, PER/ER/RET will advise both parties of the basis for its decision and the alternative action, if any, that it proposes to take.
( b ) If a principal responding to a notification under § 19.6-6a objects to the payment or other action proposed by the Department in the notification based on the validity of the court order or divorce decree, and the record contains support for the objection, PER/ER/RET will grant the principal 30 days to initiate formal legal action to determine the validity of the objection, will continue to delay payment to the former spouse or other beneficiary during this period, and will notify the beneficiary of this action. If evidence is submitted that formal legal action has been started within the 30-day period, the amount of any proposed payment to a former spouse or other beneficiary will continue to be withheld from any payments due the principal, but no payment will be made to the former spouse or other beneficiary until a judicial decision is rendered or agreement reached between the parties.
[46 FR 12958, Feb. 19, 1981. Redesignated and amended at 46 FR 18970, Mar. 27, 1981]
### §2984b. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 88–452, title VII, §733, as added Pub. L. 92–424, §25(a), Sept. 19, 1972, 86 Stat. 703, provided for evaluation and research and a report to Congress, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 93–644, §10(a), Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2315.
EXHIBIT 32.1


              SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


I, Joseph V. Vittoria, Chief Executive Officer of Puradyn Filter Technologies
Incorporated ("the Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:


         1.       The quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the six
                  months ended June 30, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with
                  the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
                  Act of 1934; and

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

                                           August 14, 2007



                                           /s/ Joseph V. Vittoria
                                           -------------------------------------
                                     Name: Joseph V. Vittoria
                                     Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| **STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY - Schedule of Dividends Per Share Paid to Stockholders (Details) - $ / shares** | 12 Months Ended |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|
||
| **Stockholders' Equity Note [Abstract]**                                                               |            |   |   |
| Dividends per share paid (in dollars per share)                                                        | $ 4.80          | $ 4.72 | $ 4.64 |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Aggregate dividends paid during the period for each share of common stock outstanding.
+ References
Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 505 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.3-04) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147480008/505-10-S99-1
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_CommonStockDividendsPerShareCashPaid**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**dtr-types:perShareItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_StockholdersEquityNoteAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
§ 1508.220 Are any procurement contracts included as covered transactions? ( a ) Covered transactions under this part— ( 1 ) Do not include any procurement contracts awarded directly by a Federal agency; but
( 2 ) Do include some procurement contracts awarded by non-Federal participants in nonprocurement covered transactions (see appendix to this part).
( b ) Specifically, a contract for goods or services is a covered transaction if any of the following applies: ( 1 ) The contract is awarded by a participant in a nonprocurement transaction that is covered under § 1508.210, and the amount of the contract is expected to equal or exceed $25,000.
( 2 ) The contract requires the consent of a(n) ADF official. In that case, the contract, regardless of the amount, always is a covered transaction, and it does not matter who awarded it. For example, it could be a subcontract awarded by a contractor at a tier below a nonprocurement transaction, as shown in the appendix to this part.
( 3 ) The contract is for federally-required audit services.
#### § 140.11 Minimum enforcement procedures.

Sections 140.6 through 140.10 represent the minimum procedures that each agency providing assistance must apply in order to implement FAA Section 487. Under individual circumstances, however, additional measures may be appropriate. In those cases, agencies providing assistance are encouraged to take additional steps, as necessary, to ensure that the statutory restrictions are enforced.
#### Rhulen-Immoor, Inc., Respondent, v Victor Rivera, Jr., Appellant, and Robert Fountain et al., Respondents.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered November 2, 1977 in Sullivan County, which denied appellant’s motion to open a default judgment. The underlying action is one to recover a broker’s fee for the sale of certain property by defendants, Robert and Caroline Fountain, to appellant, Victor Rivera, Jr. The latter denied any liability, contending there was no broker involved in the sale and that plaintiff was a total stranger throughout the transaction. The instant action was commenced against appellant by the service of a summons and notice on February 26, 1974. Appellant failed to appear. A default judgment was filed February 19, 1975 and appellant was notified by letter dated February 20, 1975. An income execution was served on April 26, 1976. A motion to vacate the default was made July 25, 1977. By decision dated September 23, 1977, the court stated that it would permit *1117appellant to open the default but denied the request to vacate a discontinuance stipulation entered into between plaintiff and defendants Fountain. Thereafter, on October 20, 1977, the court, on its own motion, pursuant to CPLR 2001, recalled its prior decision and in a letter memorandum denied appellant’s motion in all respects on the ground that the court exceeded its jurisdiction under CPLR 5015 (subd 1) by acting on appellant’s motion submitted after the one-year period had expired. An order was then entered denying appellant’s motion and this appeal ensued. We disagree with the court’s reason for recalling its prior decision. The court has an inherent power to open judgments in the interest of justice. The power may be exercised even after the expiration of the one year period *(Machnick Bldrs. v Grand Union Co.,*52 AD2d 655; 9 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac, § 63.190). Consequently, the order must be reversed and the matter remitted to Special Term. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and matter remitted for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Staley, Jr., Larkin and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
COMMUNITYCOR
P



Exhibit 32



Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906
Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



|Exhibit | 32
|------- | --



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



The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Communitycorp (the Company), each certify that to his or her knowledge on the date
of this certification:



| | 1 | The quarterly report of the Company for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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 results of operations of the Company.
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This 12thday of November 2003



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/    W. ROGER CROOK                               
|                                                    
|W. Roger Crook President and Chief
Executive Officer





|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|/s/    GWEN P. BUNTON                    
|                                         
|Gwen P. Bunton Vice President and
Cashier



20
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6660

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALEXANDER REID, a/k/a Batman,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (2:97-cr-00577-PMD-1)

Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: September 16, 2008

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Gordon Baker, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,

South Carolina, for Appellant. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Alexander Reid appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion for credit of over-served time. Reid contends he is

entitled to a credit for time served and that credit should be

applied to his current term of imprisonment. 

Reid pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine base

and served his sentence of 135 months of imprisonment. Reid

subsequently violated his conditions of supervised release, and the

district court revoked supervised release and ordered an additional

thirty-seven months of imprisonment. Reid argues he is entitled to

a retroactive reduction of his sentence for conspiracy to

distribute cocaine, under the recent amendments to the United

States Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.10, 2D1.1, App’x

C, Amend. 706 (2007 & Supp. May 1, 2008). Reid states he should

receive a credit for the excess time he served based on the

amendments to the guidelines, and the district court should apply

this credit against his current sentence for revocation of

supervised release. 

The application notes accompanying the guidelines

amendment state, “[i]n no case, however, shall the term of

imprisonment be reduced below time served.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10

comment. (n.3). Thus, we decline to reduce Reid’s sentence for his

cocaine base conviction below the amount of time he has already

served for the crime. Furthermore, the Guidelines application
3

notes provide that the amendment “does not authorize a reduction in

the term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised

release.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 comment. (n.4(A)). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We

deny Reid’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 31.3**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, JamesG. Ivey,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q as amended by this Form 10-Q/A ofMarkWest Hydrocarbon, Inc.;

 

2. Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’sother certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures****and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5. The registrant’sother certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

 

a)              All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)             Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  October 20, 2005 | By:    | /s/  JAMES G. IVEY       |
|-----------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                              |   | James  G. Ivey           |
|                              |   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES HALSEY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-01335 JSW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On January 12, 2010, this Court received notice that this matter had fully settled. 

Thereafter, the Court vacated the pretrial and trial dates and deadlines. However, the Court has

not yet received a stipulation of dismissal. Accordingly, the parties are HEREBY ORDERED

TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed. The parties response to this Order

to Show Cause or a Stipulation of Dismissal shall be due by no later than June 25, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01335-JSW Document 53 Filed 06/15/10 Page 1 of 1
### §§2924, 2925. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 2924, Pub. L. 88–452, title V, §504, as added Pub. L. 89–794, title V, §501(a), Nov. 8, 1966, 80 Stat. 1467; amended Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §107(d), Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 714, set the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and the three succeeding fiscal years as the duration of the work experience, training, and day care programs, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 93–644, §8(a), Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2300.

Section 2925, Pub. L. 88–452, title V, §505, as added Pub. L. 89–794, title V, §501(a), Nov. 8, 1966, 80 Stat. 1467; amended Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §107(d), Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 714, provided for the transition of training programs for needy persons requiring special family and supportive services, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 93–644, §8(a), Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2300.
Case 3:08-cv-01034-CRB Document 8 Filed 01/07/10 Page 1 of 2Case 3:08-cv-01034-CRB Document 8 Filed 01/07/10 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 89 FR 71806, Sept. 4, 2024.

§ 3.47 Relationship to registration. ( a ) A temporary license shall not be deemed to be a registration or to confer any right to such registration.
( b ) Unless a temporary license has terminated, a temporary license shall become a registration upon the earlier of: ( 1 ) A determination by the National Futures Association that the applicant is qualified for registration as an introducing broker; or
( 2 ) The expiration of six months from the date of issuance unless a notice has been issued under § 3.60 of the initiation of a proceeding to deny registration under sections 8a(2) or 8a(3) of the Act.
[51 FR 45761, Dec. 22, 1986, as amended at 58 FR 19595, Apr. 15, 1993]
### §1973m. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 89–110, title I, §16, Aug. 6, 1965, 79 Stat. 445; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 91–285, §2, June 22, 1970, 84 Stat. 314, authorized Attorney General and Secretary of Defense, jointly, to make a study to determine whether laws or practices of any State or States impose preconditions to voting resulting in discrimination against Armed Forces personnel seeking to vote and to make a report to Congress not later than June 30, 1966, with the results of such study and recommendations for legislation.
Case 3:08-cr-00160-SI Document 346 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:08-cr-00160-SI Document 346 Filed 02/23/10 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:08-cr-00160-SI Document 346 Filed 02/23/10 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:08-cr-00160-SI Document 346 Filed 02/23/10 Page 4 of 4
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRICK ROSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

INDEPENDENT LIVINGRESOURCE OF CONTRA COSTACOUNTY,

Defendant.

NO. C08-00854 TEH

FINAL ORDER RE: JURYTRIAL

The Court is in receipt of Defendant Independent Living Resource of Contra Costa

County’s (“I.L.R.”) objections, filed on August 23, 2010, in response to the Court’s August

18, 2010, order regarding whether to proceed with a jury trial. The Court has reviewed the

cases cited by Defendant, and finds nothing in these authorities to support Defendant’s

argument that Plaintiff loses the jury trial right that historically attaches to a tort claim.

Therefore, oral argument is unnecessary and trial will proceed at 8:30 a.m. on August 24,

2010, as ordered by the Court on December 14, 2009.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/23/10                                                                          THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGEUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:08-cv-00854-TEH   Document 140   Filed 08/23/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-09T15:28:37-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
No: II-16-020 April 11, 2016

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417 

Joey Ledford 404-997-4416

NRC Schedules Open House to Discuss Mixed Oxide Facility Performance

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled an open house for Tuesday, April 19, to 

discuss the agency’s assessment of activities last year at the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility 

under construction at the Savannah River site.

The open house is scheduled from 6-7 p.m. in the Garden Conference Room of the Applied 

Research Center, 301 Gateway Dr., in New Ellenton, S.C. There will be no formal presentation, but 

NRC staff members will be available to answer questions and provide information about NRC 

inspection and oversight of the facility. 

The NRC review covered the period from Jan. 1, 2015, through Dec. 31, 2015, and concluded 

that construction activities were consistent with NRC rules and regulations as well as the conditions of 

the MOX construction authorization. No areas were identified as needing improvement and the NRC 

plans to continue its inspections at the site appropriate for the level of construction activity.

The MOX facility, being constructed by CB&I AREVA MOX Services, is located at the U.S. 

Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site near Aiken, S.C. If completed, the facility will be owned 

by the DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration and will convert supplies of surplus weaponsgrade plutonium into more proliferation-resistant material by blending it with natural or depleted 

uranium. When converted into mixed oxide, or MOX fuel, it can be used in commercial nuclear 

reactors to generate electricity. 

The MOX facility performance review letter covering 2015 is available on the NRC website.