alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 96.32 Internal structure and oversight. ( a ) The agency or person has (or, in the case of an individual, is) a chief executive officer or equivalent official who is qualified by education, adoption service experience, and management credentials to ensure effective use of resources and coordinated delivery of the services provided by the agency or person, and has authority and responsibility for management and oversight of the staff and any supervised providers in carrying out the adoption-related functions of the organization.
( b ) The agency or person has a board of directors or a similar governing body that establishes and approves its mission, policies, budget, and programs; provides leadership to secure the resources needed to support its programs; includes one or more individuals with experience in adoption, including but not limited to, adoptees, birth parents, prospective adoptive parent(s), and adoptive parents; and appoints and oversees the performance of its chief executive officer or equivalent official. This standard does not apply where the person is an individual practitioner.
( c ) The agency or person keeps permanent records of the meetings and deliberations of its governing body and of its major decisions affecting the delivery of adoption services.
( d ) The agency or person has in place procedures and standards, pursuant to § 96.45 and § 96.46, for the selection, monitoring, and oversight of supervised providers.
( e ) The agency or person discloses to the accrediting entity the following information: ( 1 ) Any other names by which the agency or person is or has been known, under either its current or any former form of organization, and the addresses and phone numbers used when such names were used;
( 2 ) The name, address, and phone number of each current director, manager, and employee of the agency or person, and, for any such individual who previously served as a director, manager, or employee of another provider of adoption services, the name, address, and phone number of such other provider; and
( 3 ) The name, address, and phone number of any entity it uses or intends to use as a supervised provider.
#### § 401.7 Conduct of hearings.

Hearings may be conducted, testimony received and arguments thereon heard by the whole Commission or by one or more Commissioners from each section of the Commission, designated for that purpose by the respective sections or the Chairman thereof.
§ 513.413 Suspending official's decision. The suspending official may modify or terminate the suspension (for example, see § 513.320(c) for reasons for reducing the period or scope of debarment) or may leave it in force. However, a decision to modify or terminate the suspension shall be without prejudice to the subsequent imposition of suspension by any other agency or debarment by any agency. The decision shall be rendered in accordance with the following provisions: ( a ) *No additional proceedings necessary.* In actions: based on an indictment, conviction, or civil judgment; in which there is no genuine dispute over material facts; or in which additional proceedings to determine disputed material facts have been denied on the basis of Department of Justice advice, the suspending official shall make a decision on the basis of all the information in the administrative record, including any submission made by the respondent. The decision shall be made within 45 days after receipt of any information and argument submitted by the respondent, unless the suspending official extends this period for good cause.
( b ) *Additional proceedings necessary.* ( 1 ) In actions in which additional proceedings are necessary to determine disputed material facts, written findings of fact shall be prepared. The suspending official shall base the decision on the facts as found, together with any information and argument submitted by the respondent and any other information in the administrative record.
( 2 ) The suspending official may refer matters involving disputed material facts to another official for findings of fact. The suspending official may reject any such findings, in whole or in part, only after specifically determining them to be arbitrary or capricious or clearly erroneous.
( c ) *Notice of suspending official's decision.* Prompt written notice of the suspending official's decision shall be sent to the respondent.
### §7271c. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–85, div. C, title XXXI, §3152(b), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 2042

Section, Pub. L. 104–201, div. C, title XXXI, §3156, Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2841, related to requirements for Department of Energy weapons activities budgets for fiscal years after fiscal year 1997.
###### Editorial Note on Part 41

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 41 appear at 71 FR 34521 and 34522, June 15, 2006.

#### § 41.82 Certain parents and children of section 101(a)(27)(I) special immigrants. [Reserved]
§ 51.61 Denial of passports to certain convicted drug traffickers. ( a ) A passport may not be issued in any case in which the Department determines or is informed by competent authority that the applicant is subject to imprisonment or supervised release as the result of a felony conviction for a Federal or state drug offense, if the individual used a U.S. passport or otherwise crossed an international border in committing the offense, including a felony conviction arising under: ( 1 ) The Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.*) or the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 *et seq.*); or
( 2 ) Any Federal law involving controlled substances as defined in section 802 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.*); or
( 3 ) The Bank Secrecy Act (31 U.S.C. 5311 *et seq.*) or the Money Laundering Act (18 U.S.C. 1956 *et seq.*) if the Department is in receipt of information that supports the determination that the violation involved is related to illicit production of or trafficking in a controlled substance; or
( 4 ) Any state law involving the manufacture, distribution, or possession of a controlled substance.
( b ) A passport may be refused in any case in which the Department determines or is informed by competent authority that the applicant is subject to imprisonment or supervised release as the result of a misdemeanor conviction of a Federal or state drug offense if the individual used a U.S. passport or otherwise crossed an international border in committing the offense, other than a first conviction for possession of a controlled substance, including a misdemeanor conviction arising under: ( 1 ) The Federal statutes described in § 51.61(a); or
( 2 ) Any State law involving the manufacture, distribution, or possession of a controlled substance.
( c ) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, the Department may issue a passport when the competent authority confirms, or the Department otherwise finds, that emergency circumstances or humanitarian reasons exist.
#### Benjamin A. Wilder, Appellant, v Subrina Wash, Inc., Respondent.

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff vendee appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 18, 1976, which denied his motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted, and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment denied. The "binder” executed by the parties designates the parties, describes the subject matter, states the time and terms of payment, provides a closing date and is subscribed by the party to be charged. Thus, on its face, that memorandum contains all of the essential elements of a contract and it is sufficient within the requirements of the Statute of Frauds. Accordingly, it is properly subject to specific performance upon payment of the purchase price. Martuscello, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 77679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28329]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-114726-04]
RIN 1545-BD23


Distributions From a Pension Plan Under a Phased Retirement 
Program; Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to a notice of proposed 
rulemaking that was published in the Federal Register on November 10, 
2004 (69 FR 65108), providing rules permitting distributions to be made 
from a pension plan under a phased retirement program and set forth 
requirements for a bona fide phased retirement program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathy A. Vohs (202) 622-6090 (not a 
toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-114726-04) that is the 
subject of this correction is under section 401(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

    As published, REG-114726-04 contains errors that may prove to be 
misleading and are in need of clarification.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking 
(REG-114726-04), that was the subject of FR Doc. 04-24874, is corrected 
as follows:
    1. On page 65111, column 2, in the preamble under the paragraph 
heading ``Explanation of Provisions'', fourth paragraph, line 9, the 
language, ``retirement benefit, commencing a later'' is corrected to 
read ``retirement benefit, commencing at a later''.
    2. On page 65112, column 1, in the preamble under the paragraph 
heading ``Explanation of Provisions'', first paragraph, line 1, the 
language, ``the continued availability of heath'' is corrected to read 
``the continued availability of health''.
    3. On page 65112, column 1, in the preamble under the paragraph 
heading ``Explanation of Provisions'', first paragraph, line 6, the 
language, ``rules relating to heath coverage.'' is corrected to read 
``rules relating to health coverage.''

Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Acting Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing 
Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. 04-28329 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON LYNDALE COOPER,

Petitioner,

v.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-1516 SI (pr)

ORDER 

After the petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied and judgment entered, petitioner

filed a notice of appeal. A week after filing the notice of appeal, he filed a motion for

reconsideration and a motion requesting appointment of counsel.

This court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion for reconsideration because there is

an appeal pending. See Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 586 (9th Cir. 2004). The court

also construes the motion to request the court to indicate it would entertain a motion for relief

from the judgment, see id., and declines that request. The motion for reconsideration is

DENIED. (Docket # 27.) 

Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel also is DENIED because his case has

concluded in this court. (Docket # 28.) The denial of this motion is without prejudice to him

filing such a motion in the Ninth Circuit.

All further motions should be filed in the Ninth Circuit rather than in the district court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 20, 2010 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01516-SI Document 29 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 1
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00248

- CV

I N THE I NTEREST OF D.B. AND G.B.,

C HILDREN §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 235th District Court

of Cooke County ( CV20

- 00209 )

October 28, 2021

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appea l in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             379
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           6,875
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     16,670
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           4,317
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             4,288
<LOANS>                                         41,502
<ALLOWANCE>                                        807
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,370
<DEPOSITS>                                      55,021
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                344
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,994
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  70,370
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,574
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  815
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   291
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,686
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,758
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,758
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,928
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,220
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    884
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         884
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       575
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .43
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.95
<LOANS-NON>                                         27
<LOANS-PAST>                                       225
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,496
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   803
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       43
<RECOVERIES>                                        42
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  807
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                99
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            708
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

      In connection  with the quarterly  report of PetCARE  Television  Network,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2004 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on November 14, 2004 (the
"Report"),  I, Donald R.  Mastropietro,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (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.

/S/ DONALD R. MASTROPIETRO
--------------------------
Donald R. Mastropietro
Chief Financial Officer
November 12, 2004


A signed  original of this  certification  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.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Omtool, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert L. Voelk, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(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 ofthe Company.

 

 
| /s/ Robert  L. Voelk     |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Robert L.  Voelk         |
| Chief  Executive Officer |
| August 10,  2004         |

 

----
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

## DEC 2 D }~~n THEADMINISTRATOR Mr . James R

. Moseley Chair Farm, Ranch and Rural Communities Committee 7418 East Countyline Road South Clarks Hill, Indiana 47930 Dear Mr . Moseley: Thankyou and the members ofthe Farm, Ranch and Rural Communities Committee for your thoughtful consideration ofthe important issues discussed in the advice letters and white papers recently submitted to the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency. I have asked my Agricultural Counselor, Lawrence Elworth, to discuss the specific issues that the Committee has raised with the appropriate offices within the Agency, including our Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and our Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. The Agency has already engaged with the National Association of State Directors of Agriculture to participate in regular communications with that organization's membership. Discussions are also underway to enhance interaction and communications with thewider agricultural community. Thank you again for your time and efforts in service to the Agency. I look forward to continued work with the Committee to address the challenges and opportunities that confront us today regarding agriculture and the environment. SincerelA

cc: Lawrence Elworth Rafael DeLeon Mark Joyce Alicia Kaiser

Internet Address (URL) e http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable e Printed with VegetableOil Based Inks on 100%Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
#### In the Matter of Daniel Chazanoff, Appellant, v Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Rochester, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner was first employed by respondent on June 18, 1964 as a senior consultant in music. The correspondence between the parties and the job description in existence at that time make it clear that he was employed to supervise instrumental music in the Rochester school system. Despite numerous salary and title changes since his employment, he has continued to perform the same duties. In April, 1976 he was advised that for budgetary reasons his position would be abolished, effective July 1, 1976 and on May 21, 1976 he was terminated, effective July 1, 1976. At the time petitioner’s job was abolished and for some time prior thereto, respondent also employed a consultant, music, who was in charge of the vocal music program. Both the instrumental and vocal music positions are supervisory. Petitioner has seniority over the incumbent supervisor of vocal music. He claims that the two jobs are the same, that as the senior employee he is entitled to the vocal music position and that the school board unlawfully divided the supervisory positions in the music department into separate tenure areas. He, therefore, demands reinstatement as consultant, music (vocal) (see Education Law, §§ 2510, 2585). The school board points out that the re-employment rights guaranteed to tenured teachers by the Education Law are limited to positions within the same tenure area. It maintains that the vocal and instrumental music properly may be divided into separate tenure areas. A review of the job descriptions and responsibilities make it clear that the qualifications and salaries of the two positions are substantially different. The Commissioner of Education has approved separate tenure areas for instrumental and vocal supervisors *(Matter of Harding,*10 Ed Dept Rep 129), and the Court of Appeals has affirmed the holding that the area tenure requirements set forth in *Matter of Baer v Nyquist*(34 NY2d 291) need not be applied to administrative or supervisory personnel *(Matter of Coates v Ambach,*52 AD2d 261, affd on opn at App Div 42 NY2d 846). Accordingly, we find that respondent did not act arbitrarily or unlawfully in discharging petitioner when it abolished the job of senior consultant in instrumental music. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Supreme Court—article 78.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons and Dillon JJ.
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

1g:\bzall\-refs\refs.2010\Consumer Order Continuing Time Of SC.wpd

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONSUMER SOLUTIONS REO, LLC, 

Plaintiff(s),

v.

RUTHIE B. HILLERY, et al.

Defendant(s).

))))))))))))))))

No. C08-4357 EMC (BZ)

ORDER CHANGING TIME OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the settlement conference

presently scheduled for, Tuesday, May 11, 2010 at 9:00 a.m.,

shall instead begin at 2:00 p.m.,  in Courtroom G, 15th Floor,

Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,

California 94102.  The settlement conference order otherwise

remains in full force and effect.

Dated: May 3, 2010

     Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04357-EMC   Document 128   Filed 05/03/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-09T02:58:07-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO