alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1701.110 Self-evaluation. ( a ) The agency shall, by November 28, 1994, evaluate its current policies and practices, and the effects thereof, that do not or may not meet the requirements of this part and, to the extent modification of any such policies and practices is required, the agency shall proceed to make the necessary modifications.
( b ) The agency shall provide an opportunity to interested persons, including individuals with handicaps or organizations representing individuals with handicaps, to participate in the self-evaluation process by submitting comments (both oral and written).
( c ) The agency shall, for at least three years following completion of the self-evaluation, maintain on file and make available for public inspection: ( 1 ) A description of areas examined and any problems identified; and
( 2 ) A description of any modifications made.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Omtool,Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Daniel A. Coccoluto, Acting Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Daniel A. Coccoluto  |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Daniel A.  Coccoluto     |   |
| Chief Financial  Officer |   |
| May 11, 2006        |   |

 

----
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Daniel A.Coccoluto, certify that:

1. I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Omtool, Ltd.;

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 ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

**b)[Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained inSEC Release 34-47986 and 33-8618.]**

c) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; 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 the registrant’s board of directors:

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 14,2006
|        | By:    |  /s/ Daniel A. Coccoluto |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |  Daniel A. Coccoluto     |   |
|   |   |  Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

1

----
#### In the Matter of Martha Selig, Appellant, v. Joseph Caputa, as State Rent Administrator, Respondent, and Alvin Regensberg, Intervenor-Respondent.

In a proceeding by a landlord pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review and annul a determination of the State Rent Administrator, which denied her protest of orders of the Local Rent Administrator revoking retroactively rent increases granted pursuant to subdivision 5 of section 33 of the State Rent and Eviction Regulations and directing her to refund the excess rents collected, she appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated November 2, 1959, denying her petition and dismissing the proceeding. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
### §18701. Definitions

In this division:

#### (1) Department

The term "Department" means the Department of Energy.

#### (2) Indian Tribe

The term "Indian Tribe" has the meaning given the term in section 5304 of title 25.

#### (3) Secretary

The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Energy.

(Pub. L. 117–58, div. D, §40001, Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 923.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This division, referred to in text, is div. D of Pub. L. 117–58, Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 923, which enacted this chapter and enacted and amended numerous other sections and notes in the Code. For complete classification of div. D to the Code, see Tables.

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

#### Wage Rate Requirements

For provisions relating to rates of wages to be paid to laborers and mechanics on projects for construction, alteration, or repair work funded under div. D or an amendment by div. D of Pub. L. 117–58, including authority of Secretary of Labor, see section 18851 of this title.
## HGR-P 4 mm CALCULATION SHEET DATE: 05/10/2012 CUSTOMER: ERG, Inc LOCATION: Morrisville, NC NOTES: Fixed bed for wet "exhaust streams" CCC Ref# Hg050412-1 PROCESS CONDITIONS: FLOW: 15.22 MMNCFD(10,000 SCFM) PRESSURE: 1 ATM ABSOLUTE TEMPERATURE: 150 Degrees F COMPRESS. FACTOR: 1 HG CONCENTRATION INLET 3 ug/Nm3 (assume Hgo) OUTLET 0.1 ug/Nm3 VESSEL DESIGN: SURFACE AREA OF FIXED BED FILTER: 346 Square Feet BED DEPTH/VESSEL: 1.1 Ft. NUMBER OF BEDS/TRAIN: 1 NUMBER OF TRAINS IN PARALLEL: 1 CARBON REQUIREMENTS: PER VESSEL TOTAL POUNDS: 9626 9626 KILOGRAMS - (APPROXIMATE) 4367 4367 CUBIC FEET 98952 98952 TOTAL DRUMS HGR-P 4 mm 42.8 42.8 PRESSURE DROP (Carbon Beds Only): UNIT 0.509 IN WATER / FOOT TOTAL 0.536 INCHES WATER TOTAL 0.00132ATM BED LIFE: 1200Years CONTACT TIME: 1.76 SECONDS VELOCITY: 35.8 FT/MIN 0.19 m/Sec
#### Clarendon Democratic Club, Inc., Respondent, v. Bernard Ludwig, Appellant.

Motion by appellant for a stay, pending appeal, denied. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MATTHEW LANE DRENNEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-27-5) Submitted: May 26, 2004 Decided: June 14, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew Lane Drennen, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Matthew Lane Drennen appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Drennen , No. CR-95-27-5 (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 9, 2003); see alsoUnited States v. Capers , 61 F.3d 1100, 1109 (4th Cir. 1992). 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
#### In the Matter of Alfred O. Kuhnle, Appellant, v. Theodore H. Lang et al., Constituting the Department of Personnel, Civil Service Commission, City of New York, et al., Respondents.

Order entered on December 19, 1961 unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
{00136499.DOC} 1 No. 3:08-cv-04571-MMC 

Stipulation re Defendant R.R. Street & Co. Inc.’s Response to City of Eureka’s Third Amended Complaint 

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

HICKS

THOMAS LLP

8001 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 100 

Sacramento, California 95826 

Telephone: (916) 388-0833 

Eric Grant (Bar No. 151064) 

grant@hicks-thomas.com 

Hicks Thomas LLP 

8001 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 100 

Sacramento, California 95826 

Telephone: (916) 388-0833 

Facsimile: (916) 691-3261 

Paula Whitten (Bar No. 255811) 

pwhitten@hicks-thomas.com 

Hicks Thomas LLP 

700 Louisiana Street, Suite 2000 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Telephone: (713) 547-9100 

Facsimile: (713) 547-9150 

Counsel for Defendant 

R.R. STREET & CO. INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

KFD ENTERPRISES, INC., a California 

corporation dba Norman’s Dry Cleaner, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CITY OF EUREKA, et al., 

 Defendants, 

AND ALL RELATED CROSS-CLAIMS 

AND THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 3:08-cv-04571-MMC 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR 

DEFENDANT R.R. STREET & CO. INC. 

TO RESPOND TO CITY OF EUREKA’S 

THIRD AMENDED COUNTER-CLAIM 

AND CROSS-CLAIM 

[Civil L.R. 7-12] 

 Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-12, Defendant, Cross-Claimant, and Counter-Claimant City of 

Eureka (“Eureka”) and Defendant R.R. Street & Co. Inc. (“Street”) hereby stipulate and request 

judicial action as follows: 

 Street shall have an extension of time to and including June 4, 2010 to respond to Eureka’s 

Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 228, filed Apr. 30, 2010). 

///

Case 3:08-cv-04571-SC Document 240 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 2
{00136499.DOC} 2 No. 3:08-cv-04571-MMC 

Stipulation re Defendant R.R. Street & Co. Inc.’s Response to City of Eureka’s Third Amended Complaint 

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

HICKS

THOMAS LLP

8001 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 100 

Sacramento, California 95826 

Telephone: (916) 388-0833 

 Dated: May 21, 2010. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Eric Grant 

Eric Grant 

Paula Whitten 

Hicks Thomas LLP 

Counsel for Defendant 

R.R. STREET & CO. INC. 

(The filer hereby attests that concurrence in

the filing of this document has been obtained 

from the signatory below.) 

DAVIDOVITZ & BENNETT LLP 

/s/ Charles Bolcom 

MORIS DAVIDOVITZ 

CHARLES BOLCOM 

STACEY ALTON 

Attorneys for Defendant, Cross-Claimant, 

and Counter-Claimant CITY OF EUREKA 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May _____, 2010. 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY 

United States District Judge 

25

Case 3:08-cv-04571-SC Document 240 Filed 05/25/10 Page 2 of 2
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORA J. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PRUDENTIAL INS CO.,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-04170 SI

ORDER OF DISMISSAL UPON

SETTLEMENT

The parties to the action, by their counsel, have advised the court that they have agreed

to a settlement. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. However, that

if any party hereto certifies to this court, with proof of service of a copy thereon on opposing counsel,

within ninety days from the date hereof, that settlement has not in fact occurred, the foregoing order

shall be vacated and this cause shall forthwith be restored to the calendar for further proceedings.

Dated: SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04170-SI Document 68 Filed 04/12/10 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 42
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 42 appear at 71 FR 34522, June 15, 2006.

§ 42.51 Department control of numerical limitations. ( a ) *Centralized control.* Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number: ( 1 ) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203 (a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
( 2 ) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203 (a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
( b ) *Allocation of numbers.* Within the foregoing limitations, the Department shall allocate immigrant visa numbers for use in connection with the issuance of immigrant visas and adjustments based on the chronological order of the priority dates of visa applicants classified under INA 203 (a) and (b) reported by consular officers pursuant to § 42.55(b) and of applicants for adjustment of status as reported by officers of the DHS, taking into account the requirements of INA 202(e) in such allocations. In the case of applicants under INA 203(c), visa numbers shall be allocated within the limitation for each specified geographical region in the random order determined in accordance with sec. 42.33(c) of this part.
( c ) *Recaptured visa numbers.* An immigrant visa number shall be returned to the Department for reallocation within the fiscal year in which the visa was issued when: ( 1 ) An immigrant having an immigrant visa is excluded from the United States and deported;
( 2 ) An immigrant does not apply for admission to the United States before the expiration of the validity of the visa;
( 3 ) An alien having a preference immigrant visa is found not to be a preference immigrant; or
( 4 ) An immigrant visa is revoked pursuant to § 42.82.
[56 FR 51174, Oct. 10, 1991, as amended at 59 FR 15302, Mar. 31, 1994; 63 FR 48578, Sept. 11, 1998]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gustavo NEVAREZ-CORRAL, also known as Jeronimo Gutierrez-Corral, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-51592

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 2, 2007.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jeronimo Gutierrez-Corral, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, pro se.

*324Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Gustavo Nevarez-Corral raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almenda-rez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
### §4574. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 91–616, title III, §304, as added Pub. L. 93–282, title I, §107, May 14, 1974, 88 Stat. 127, which related to special grants for implementation of the Uniform Alcoholism and Intoxication Treatment Act, was transferred to section 4576 of this title and subsequently repealed.
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 71 FR 34520 and 34521, June 15, 2006.

#### § 40.103 International child abduction.

An alien who would otherwise be ineligible under INA 212(a)(9)(C)(i) shall not be ineligible under such paragraph if the U.S. citizen child in question is physically located in a foreign state which is party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

[61 FR 1833, Jan. 24, 1996]
§ 518.21 Standards for financial management systems. ( a ) Federal awarding agencies shall require recipients to relate financial data to performance data and develop unit cost information whenever practical.
( b ) Recipients' financial management systems shall provide for the following. ( 1 ) Accurate, current and complete disclosure of the financial results of each federally-sponsored project or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in § 19.52. If a Federal awarding agency requires reporting on an accrual basis from a recipient that maintains its records on other than an accrual basis, the recipient shall not be required to establish an accrual accounting system. These recipients may develop such accrual data for its reports on the basis of an analysis of the documentation on hand.
( 2 ) Records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for federally-sponsored activities. These records shall contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, obligations, unobligated balances, assets, outlays, income and interest.
( 3 ) Effective control over and accountability for all funds, property and other assets. Recipients shall adequately safeguard all such assets and assure they are used solely for authorized purposes.
( 4 ) Comparison of outlays with budget amounts for each award. Whenever appropriate, financial information should be related to performance and unit cost data.
( 5 ) Written procedures to minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds to the recipient from the U.S. Treasury and the issuance or redemption of checks, warrants or payments by other means for program purposes by the recipient. To the extent that the provisions of the Cash Management Improvement Act (CMIA) (Pub. L. 101-453) govern, payment methods of State agencies, instrumentalities, and fiscal agents shall be consistent with CMIA Treasury-State Agreements or the CMIA default procedures codified at 31 CFR part 205, “Withdrawal of Cash from the Treasury for Advances under Federal Grant and Other Programs.”
( 6 ) Written procedures for determining the reasonableness, allocability and allowability of costs in accordance with the provisions of the applicable Federal cost principles and the terms and conditions of the award.
( 7 ) Accounting records including cost accounting records that are supported by source documentation.
( c ) Where the Federal Government guarantees or insures the repayment of money borrowed by the recipient, the Federal awarding agency, at its discretion, may require adequate bonding and insurance if the bonding and insurance requirements of the recipient are not deemed adequate to protect the interest of the Federal Government.
( d ) The Federal awarding agency may require adequate fidelity bond coverage where the recipient lacks sufficient coverage to protect the Federal Government's interest.
( e ) Where bonds are required in the situations described above, the bonds shall be obtained from companies holding certificates of authority as acceptable sureties, as prescribed in 31 CFR part 223, “Surety Companies Doing Business with the United States.”
§ 312.500 How are violations of this part determined for recipients other than individuals? A recipient other than an individual is in violation of the requirements of this part if the Peace Corps Director or designee determines, in writing, that— ( a ) The recipient has violated the requirements of subpart B of this part; or
( b ) The number of convictions of the recipient's employees for violating criminal drug statutes in the workplace is large enough to indicate that the recipient has failed to make a good faith effort to provide a drug-free workplace.
#### Miriam Ament, Appellant, v. Albert M. Cohen, Respondent

Motion by respondent for reargnment denied. Beldock, P. J., TJghetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
### §3796d–4. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796d–4 was editorially reclassified as section 10305 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
From:•johan.boij@wartsila.com

Sent:•Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:04 AM To:•pagan.jaime@epamail.epa.gov Cc:•Tanya Parise; JSuchecki@ngelaw.com; Gerber_Gordon_R@cat.com Subject:•EPA/EMA Meeting February 09 2009 Attachments:•Emergency%20Gensets%20%28nuclear.%20etc.%29.pdf; Microsoft PowerPoint Geographical area fuel sulfur contents ppt Read Only.pdf; Microsoft PowerPoint Fuel exemption areas ppt Read Only.pdf; Microsoft PowerPoint Territories Alaska ppt Read Only.pdf

Dear Jaime,

First I want to thank you for the meeting last week.

In the meeting you asked for some information of big emergency engines and particulate measurement. Please, find attached general information about nuclear emergency gensets and
PM measurement methods. <<Emergency%20Gensets%20%28nuclear.%20etc.%29.pdf>> <<Microsoft PowerPoint Geographical area fuel sulfur contents ppt Read Only.pdf>> We discussed also in the meeting shortly about fuel exemption areas and alternative emission standards for noncontinental areas. I have also attached some slides about these items. <<Microsoft PowerPoint Fuel exemption areas ppt Read Only.pdf>> <<Microsoft PowerPoint Territories Alaska ppt Read Only.pdf>> Please, feel frre to contacyt me if you have questions regarding this.

Best Regards, Johan Boij
#### Fryer *v.*Bank of Bullochville.

April 12, 1912.

Equitable petition. Before Judge E. W. Freeman. Meriwether superior court. January 25, 1911.

*J. J. Bull, Hatton Lovejoy,*and *McLaughlin, Jones <& Jones,*for plaintiff in error. *N. F. Culpepper,*contra.

Fish, C. J.

The only assignment of ex'ror in the bill of exceptions is upon the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial. In the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error no reference is made to any of the points raised-in the amendment to the motion for a new trial, and they will therefore be considered as abandoned. The verdict was not without evidence to support it, and the court did not err in refusing a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*