alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 130.10 Information to be furnished by applicant or supplier to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. ( a ) Every person required under § 130.9 to furnish information specified in this section in respect to any sale must furnish to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls: ( 1 ) The total contract price of the sale to the foreign purchaser;
( 2 ) The name, nationality, address and principal place of business of the applicant or supplier, as the case may be, and, if applicable, the employer and title;
( 3 ) The name, nationality, address and principal place of business, and if applicable, employer and title of each foreign purchaser, including the ultimate end-user involved in the sale;
( 4 ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, a statement setting forth with respect to such sale: ( i ) The amount of each political contribution paid, or offered or agreed to be paid, or the amount of each fee or commission paid, or offered or agreed to be paid;
( ii ) The date or dates on which each reported amount was paid, or offered or agreed to be paid;
( iii ) The recipient of each such amount paid, or intended recipient if not yet paid;
( iv ) The person who paid, or offered or agreed to pay such amount; and
( v ) The aggregate amounts of political contributions and of fees or commission, respectively, which shall have been reported.
( b ) In responding to paragraph (a)(4) of this section, the statement must: ( 1 ) With respect to each payment reported, state whether such payment was in cash or in kind. If in kind, it must include a description and valuation thereof. Where precise amounts are not available because a payment has not yet been made, an estimate of the amount offered or agreed to be paid must be provided;
( 2 ) With respect to each recipient, state: ( i ) Its name;
( ii ) Its nationality;
( iii ) Its address and principal place of business;
( iv ) Its employer and title; and
( v ) Its relationship, if any, to applicant, supplier, or vendor, and to any foreign purchaser or end-user.
( c ) In submitting a report required by § 130.9, the detailed information specified in paragraph (a)(4) and (b) of this section need not be included if the payments do not exceed: ( 1 ) $2,500 in the case of political contributions; and
( 2 ) $50,000 in the case of fees or commissions. In lieu of reporting detailed information with respect to such payments, the aggregate amount thereof must be reported, identified as miscellaneous political contributions or miscellaneous fees or commissions, as the case may be.
( d ) Every person required to furnish the information specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section must respond fully to each subdivision of those paragraphs and, where the correct response is “none” or “not applicable,” must so state.
[58 FR 39323, July 22, 1993, as amended at 71 FR 20554, Apr. 21, 2006]
### §§721 to 728. Repealed. Pub. L. 90–248, title II, §240(e)(1), Jan. 2, 1968, 81 Stat. 915

Section 721, acts Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title V, §521, 49 Stat. 633; Aug. 10, 1939, ch. 666, title V, §507(c), 53 Stat. 1381; 1940 Reorg. Plan No. III, §1(a)(1), eff. June 30, 1940, 5 F.R. 2107, 54 Stat. 1231; 1946 Reorg. Plan. No. 2, §1, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7873, 60 Stat. 1095; Aug. 10, 1946, ch. 951, title IV, §401(b)(7), 60 Stat. 986; Aug. 28, 1950, ch. 809, title III, pt. 3, §331(e), pt. 6, §361(e), 64 Stat. 552, 558; Aug. 1, 1956, ch. 836, title IV, §402, 70 Stat. 856; Aug. 28, 1958, Pub. L. 85–840, title VI, §601, 72 Stat. 1052; Sept. 13, 1960, Pub. L. 86–778, title VII, §707(a)(3)(A), 74 Stat. 996; July 25, 1962, Pub. L. 87–543, title I, §102(a), (d)(1), 76 Stat. 182, 184; July 30, 1965, Pub. L. 89–97, title II, §207, 79 Stat. 355, authorized appropriations for child-welfare services.

Section 722, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title V, §522, as added Aug. 28, 1958, Pub. L. 85–840, title VI, §601, 72 Stat. 1053; amended Sept. 13, 1960, Pub. L. 86–778, title VII, §707(a)(3)(B), 74 Stat. 996; July 25, 1962, Pub. L. 87–543, title I, §102(c)(1), 76 Stat. 183; July 30, 1965, Pub. L. 89–97, title II, §208(b), 79 Stat. 355, provided for allotments to States.

Section 723, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title V, §523, as added Aug. 28, 1958, Pub. L. 85–840, title VI, §601, 72 Stat. 1053; amended July 25, 1962, Pub. L. 87–543, title I, §102(b), 76 Stat. 182; July 30, 1965, Pub. L. 89–97, title II, §208(c), 79 Stat. 356, provided for payment to States and computation of amounts.

Section 724, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title V, §524, as added Aug. 28, 1958, Pub. L. 85–840, title VI, §601, 72 Stat. 1054; amended June 25, 1959, Pub. L. 86–70, §32(b), 73 Stat. 149; July 12, 1960, Pub. L. 86–624, §30(b), 74 Stat. 420, provided for allotment percentage and Federal share.

Section 725, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title V, §525, as added Aug. 28, 1958, Pub. L. 85–840, title VI, §601, 72 Stat. 1054, provided for reallotment of allotments to States.

Section 726, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title V, §526, as added Sept. 13, 1960, Pub. L. 86–778, title VII, §707(b)(3), 74 Stat. 997; amended July 25, 1962, Pub. L. 87–543, title I, §123(d), 76 Stat. 193, provided for research, training, or demonstration projects.

Section 727, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title V, §527, as added July 25, 1962, Pub. L. 87–543, title I, §102(c)(2), 76 Stat. 183, provided for allotments and reallotment of allotments to States for day care services. Section had been previously repealed by Pub. L. 89–97, title II, §208(a)(1), July 30, 1965, 79 Stat. 355, effective Jan. 1, 1966, under section 208(d) of Pub. L. 89–97.

Section 728, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title V, §528, as added July 25, 1962, Pub. L. 87–543, title I, §102(d)(2), 76 Stat. 184, defined "child-welfare services".
EERE Information Center Search Help More Search Options

Printable Version 

## Fluorescent and Incandescent Lamps Energy Conservation Standard Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Analytical Spreadsheets The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) prepared the analytical spreadsheets listed below for the notice of proposed rulemaking stage of its energy conservation standards rulemaking on fluorescent and incandescent reflector lamps.
Life-Cycle Cost Spreadsheet ( Excel 19.1 MB ) National Impact Analysis Spreadsheet for General Service Fluorescent Lamps ( Excel 12.1 MB ) National Impact Analysis Spreadsheet for Incandescent Reflector Lamps ( Excel 30.1 MB ) Government Regulatory Impact Model for General Service Fluorescent Lamps ( Excel 3.7 MB ) Government Regulatory Impact Model for Incandescent Reflector Lamps ( Excel 6.1 MB )



### Contact Information Linda Graves Lighting Standards Project Manager (202) 586-1851

Printable Version 

### Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Fluorescent and Incan... http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/i...

1 of 2 1/29/2009 4:50 P MBuilding Technologies Program Home | EERE Home | U.S. Department of Energy Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy| USA.gov

Content Last Updated: 01/28/2009 

### Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Fluorescent and Incan... http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/i...

2 of 2 1/29/2009 4:50 P M
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code)**

** **

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 ofTitle 18, United States Code), I, John W. Elias, Chief Executive Officerof Edge Petroleum Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), herebycertify, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)                                  theCompany’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: | August 8, 2005 | /s/  John W. Elias      |
|--------|---------------------|-------------------------|
|   | Name:               | John W. Elias           |
|   |                | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nathaniel Jones, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 522]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J.), rendered January 14, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, attempted burglary in the second degree and possession of burglar’s tools, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 16 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant did not make the specific arguments before the trial court that he raises on appeal, his present challenges to the legal sufficiency of the evidence are unpreserved *(People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10 [1995]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. Although the occupants of the burglarized apartment did not testify, there was sufficient evidence, including a videotape of the scene and testimony from the occupants’ grandson, who was familiar with his grandparents’ living arrangements, to establish that the apartment was “usually occupied by a person lodging therein at night,” and thus a “dwelling” under Penal Law § 140.00 (3). The fact that defendant was found in a portion of the apartment used by the occupants as a home office is irrelevant to defendant’s criminal liability.

Defendant’s remaining sufficiency arguments and his challenges to the court’s jury charge and to remarks made by the court and prosecutor during jury selection are likewise unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find them without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Joseph Caci, Petitioner, v Arthur Levitt, as Comptroller of the State of New York, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the respondent State Comptroller, which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability. Petitioner, a Buffalo police officer, was injured in an automobile accident on February 8, 1971. Thereafter, on May 2, 1975 he filed an application for accidental disability retirement based on the 1971 accident. He described his condition as a "chronic anxiety reaction necessitating psychiatric treatment”. Respondent disapproved the application, finding petitioner’s disability not to be the natural and proximate result of the accident. After a requested hearing respondent adhered to its initial determination. The instant article 78 proceeding was commenced to review that determination. The sole issue presented on this appeal is whether there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support respondent’s *1102determination. We believe there is. Both petitioner and the retirement system produced well-qualified psychiatrists and they agreed petitioner’s disability is psychiatric rather than physical. They disagreed, however, as to the cause of the disability. Dr. McGowan testified on behalf of the retirement system to the various tests administered to petitioner and he concluded petitioner’s condition was not a result of the automobile accident, but due to "inter-personal relationship difficulties, problems at home and so on”. Respondent accepted Dr. McGowan’s testimony. The conflict of medical testimony presented a factual issue and considering the record as a whole, we are of the view that there is substantial evidence to sustain respondent’s conclusion. Consequently, it should not be disturbed *(Matter of Clark v Levitt,*50 AD2d 695; *Matter of Cunningham v Levitt,*40 AD2d 915). Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Main, Larkin and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
### §6327. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–440, §4(c)(1), Oct. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 1009

Section, Pub. L. 94–163, title III, §367, as added Pub. L. 94–385, title IV, §432(a), Aug. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1160; amended Pub. L. 95–91, title III, §301(a), title VII, §§703, 707, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 577, 606, 607; Pub. L. 95–619, title VI, §§622, 691(b)(2), Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3283, 3288, related to supplemental State energy conservation plans.
#### Lucille E. Hughes v. Thomas W. Hughes.

Motion for leave to reargue denied, but motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 25, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 75304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26124]



[[Page 75304]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XA674]


Meeting of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of open public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the proposed schedule and agenda of a 
forthcoming meeting of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC). 
The members will discuss and consider priorities and recommendations 
for the next four years and other organizational matters.

DATES: The meeting will be December 15, from 1-3 p.m., Eastern Time.

ADDRESSES: Meeting is by webinar and teleconference.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heidi Lovett; NOAA Fisheries Office of 
Policy; (301) 427-8034; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7efc2cec3ce89ebc8d1c2d3d3e7c9c8c6c689c0c8d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c880ada1aca1e684a7beadbcbc88a6a7a9a9e6afa7be">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given of a meeting of 
MAFAC. The MAFAC was established by the Secretary of Commerce 
(Secretary), and, since 1971, advises the Secretary on all living 
marine resource matters that are the responsibility of the Department 
of Commerce. The MAFAC charter and summaries of prior MAFAC meetings 
are located online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/partners/marine-fisheries-advisory-committee-charter.

Matters To Be Considered

    This meeting time and agenda are subject to change. The meeting is 
convened to discuss and consider priorities and recommendations to 
consider for the next four years, hear updates on current activities on 
seafood and aquaculture, and may also discuss future work for its 
subcommittees and other organizational matters.

Time and Date

    The meeting is scheduled for December 15, 2020 from 1-3 p.m., 
Eastern Time by webinar and conference call. Access information for the 
public will be posted at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/partners/marine-fisheries-advisory-committee-meeting-materials-and-summaries by December 8, 2020.

    Dated: November 20, 2020.
Jennifer L. Lukens,
Federal Program Officer, Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-26124 Filed 11-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Termination Notice from Betsy Z. Cohen



  
 Exhibit 10.7

 Betsy Z. Cohen 
 as of November 4, 2010 
 Scott F. Schaeffer 

Chief Executive Officer and President 
 RAIT
Financial Trust 
 Cira Centre 
 2929 Arch Street, 17th Floor 
 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 
 To the Chief Executive Officer and President: 
 This letter is formal notification
of my retirement effective as of December 31, 2010 from the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of RAIT Financial Trust (“RAIT”), as Chairman of the Board and from any other positions held by me with RAIT and its subsidiaries.
My retirement is not because of any disagreement with RAIT on any matter relating to RAIT’s operations, policies or practices. This letter also serves as the prior written notice of my voluntary termination effective as of December 31,
2010 of the Employment Agreement dated as of December 11, 2006, as amended, between myself and RAIT in accordance with Section 2.2 thereof. 

 

	
	 Yours sincerely,

	
	 /S/ BETSY Z. COHEN

	 Betsy Z. Cohen

	


  

			
	cc:	  	Raphael Licht
		  	Chief Operating Officer and Secretary
		  	RAIT Financial Trust
#### Edenfield *v.*Milner *et al.*

July 11, 1912.

Lumpkin, J.

1. An entry of levy by a constable in these words: “Georgia. Emanuel County. I have this day levied the within fi. fa. on one-half interest in 123 acres, more or less, in the 58th District, G. M., of said county, adjoining lands of John Edenfield Sr., and others, as the property of W. A. Oliver, defendant; legal notice given said W. A. Oliver; property pointed out by the plaintiff,” was too indefinite and uncertain to authorize the sale of the half interest in any particular tract of land. Civil Code, § 6026; *Crawford*v. *Verner,*122 *Ga.*814 (50 S. E. 958), and citations.

2. Such a levy gave no authority to the sheriff to sell, not a one-half in- . terest in the tract of land containing 123 acres, more or less, but the entire interest in a tract described as containing sixty-one and a half acres more or less.

3. The uncontradicted evidence showing that the plaintiff, who sued in her own right, was 25 years of age when the suit was brought, and that the other plaintiff, for whom she appeared as next friend, was 20 years of age at that time, prescription could not have run against either of them, and therefore it is unnecessary to determine whether the sheriff’s deed would have been admissible as color of title.

4. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the recovery of a one-lialf interest in the land for which suit was brought, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*403Complaint for land. Before Judge Bawlings. Emanuel superior court. April 10, 1911.

*Saffold*<£• *Larsen,*for plaintiff in error.

*Williams & Bradley,*contra.
§ 92.27 Affiant's allegations in affidavit. ( a ) *Substance of allegations.* Although a notarizing officer is generally not responsible for the correctness of the form of an affidavit or the manner in which the allegations therein are set forth (see § 92.11(a) regarding the preparation of legal documents by attorneys; § 92.11(b) regarding the preparation of legal documents by notarizing officers; and § 92.24 regarding the form of an affidavit), he may, in appropriate instances, draw the affiant's attention to the following generally accepted criteria as regards the substance of the allegations: ( 1 ) Material facts within the personal knowledge of the affiant should be alleged directly and positively. Facts are not to be inferred where the affiant has it in his power to state them positively and fully.
( 2 ) If the matters stated in the affiant's affidavit rest upon information derived from others rather than on facts within his personal knowledge, he should aver that such matters are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
( 3 ) If the allegations made on information and belief are material, the sources of information and grounds of belief should be set out and a good reason given why a positive statement could not be made.
( 4 ) If the conclusions of the affiant are drawn from the contents of documents, such contents should be set out or exhibited, so that the authority to whom the affidavit is presented may determine whether the affiant's deductions are well founded.
( b ) *Veracity of allegations.* Notarizing officers are not required to examine into the truth of the affiant's allegations or to pass upon any contentious questions involved. In many instances the matters referred to in an affidavit will be of a technical or special nature beyond the officer's general knowledge or experience. However, he may, in certain circumstances, refuse to take an affidavit. (See § 92.9 regarding the types of situations in which an officer might properly refuse to perform a notarial service; also see § 92.10 regarding the waiver and other statements which may be included in a notarial certificate where evidence exists of falsity in the affiant's declaration.)
[22 FR 10858, Dec. 27, 1957, as amended at 60 FR 51723, Oct. 3, 1995]
Case 3:08-cv-01854-CRB Document 8 Filed 02/05/10 Page 1 of 2Case 3:08-cv-01854-CRB Document 8 Filed 02/05/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Elizabeth Diers, Also Known as Elizabeth Heckelmann, Respondent, v. June A. Heckelman, Appellant.

In an action to declare that plaintiff is the owner of certain real property and that defendant’s claim and deed thereto are invalid, defendant appeals: (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered January 26, 1959, after a nonjury trial, in favor of plaintiff; and (2) from an order, dated January 28, 1959, denying defendant’s motion for a new trial and other relief. Judgment and order affirmed, with one bill of costs. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur. [16 Misc 2d 872.]
§ 1506.27 How are interest, penalty, and administrative costs assessed? USADF will assess interest, penalties and administrative costs on debts collected under the procedures in this section. Interest, penalty and administrative costs will continue to accrue during the period that the debtor is seeking formal or informal review of the debt or requesting a waiver. The following guidelines apply to the assessment of these costs on debts collected by salary offset: ( a ) Interest will be assessed on all debts not collected by the payment due date specified in the Bill for Collection or demand letter. USADF will waive the interest and administrative charges on the portion of the debt that is paid within 30 days after the date on which interest begins to accrue.
( b ) Administrative costs will be assessed if the debt is referred to Treasury for cross-servicing.
( c ) Deductions by administrative offset normally begin prior to the time for assessment of a penalty. Therefore, a penalty charge will not be assessed unless deductions occur more than 90 days from the due date in the Bill for Collection or demand letter.
#### In the Matter of Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Appellant, v. Providence Melendez et al., Respondents.

Motion by appellant to stay arbitration proceeding, pending appeal from order, denied. Cross motion by respondents to dismiss appeal from order, denied on condition that the appeal be perfected and argued or submitted at the October Term, commencing October 1, 1962; appeal ordered on the calendar for said term. The record and appellant’s brief must be filed and served on or before August 6, 1962. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 200.25 Supplemental loans.

A loan, advance of credit or purchase of an obligation representing a loan or advance of credit made for the purpose of financing improvements or additions to a project covered by a mortgage insured under any section of the Act or Commissioner-held mortgage, or equipment for a nursing home, intermediate care facility, board and care home, assisted living facility, or group practices facility, may be insured pursuant to the provisions of section 241 of the Act and such terms and conditions established by HUD.

[72 FR 67545, Nov. 28, 2007]