alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 250

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

#### § 250.411 What information must I submit with my application?

In addition to forms BSEE-0123 and BSEE-0123S, you must include the information required in this subpart and subpart G of this part, including the following:

| Information that you must include with an APD | Where to find a description |
| --- | --- |
| (a) Plat that shows locations of the proposed well, | § 250.412. |
| (b) Design criteria used for the proposed well, | § 250.413. |
| (c) Drilling prognosis, | § 250.414. |
| (d) Casing and cementing programs, | § 250.415. |
| (e) Diverter systems descriptions, | § 250.416. |
| (f) BOP system descriptions, | § 250.731. |
| (g) Requirements for using a MODU, and | § 250.713. |
| (h) Additional information. | § 250.418. |

[81 FR 26017, Apr. 29, 2016]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Raymond P. Durocher, Appellant.

Motion for reconsideration of motion for leave to appeal as a poor person granted. On reconsideration, motion for leave to appeal as a poor person, will be treated as a motion to dispense with printing. Motion granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers (including the typed minutes) and on a typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file five copies of his brief and to serve one copy on the District Attorney. The appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged to the November 1960 Term; appeal ordered to be placed on the calendar for November 7, 1960. Thomas J. Higgins, Jr., Esq., 185 Hillside Ave., Williston Park, New York, is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
Affirmed as Modified; Opinion Filed October 30, 2013.

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01485-CR

LOUIS HANCOCK DAITCH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F04-44009-J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Moseley, Lang, and Brown

Opinion by Justice Lang

Louis Hancock Daitch appeals from the revocation of his community supervision for the 

offense of possession of cocaine in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams. 

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(a), (d) (West 2010). The trial court assessed 

punishment at ten years’ imprisonment and ordered the sentence to run consecutively with the 

sentence in cause no. F11-45640-J (cause no. 05-12-01487-CR). On appeal, appellant’s attorney 

filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief 

meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a 

professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to 
-2-

advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel 

delivered a copy of the brief to appellant.

Appellant filed a pro se response raising several issues After reviewing counsel’s brief, 

appellant’s pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. 

See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s 

duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

Although not an arguable issue, we note the first page of the judgment incorrectly states 

“this sentence shall run concurrently.” The record shows the trial judge ordered the sentence in 

this case to run consecutively with the sentence imposed in case no. F11-45640-J. The 

paragraph containing the cumulation order is located on the second page of the judgment. 

Accordingly, we modify the section of the trial court’s judgment that says “punishment and place 

of confinement” to state this sentence will run consecutively with the sentence in case no. F11-

45640-J. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley, 865 S.W.2d at 27–28; Asberry, 813 S.W.2d at 

529–30.

As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Douglas Lang

DOUGLAS S. LANG

JUSTICE

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

121485F.U05
-3-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

LOUIS HANCOCK DAITCH, Appellant 

No. 05-12-01485-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the Criminal District Court

No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 

F04-44009-J).

Opinion delivered by Justice Lang, Justices 

Moseley and Brown participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as 

follows:

The section entitled “Punishment and Place of Confinement” is modified to show “This 

sentence shall run consecutively (see below).”

As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment entered October 30, 2013.

/s/ Douglas Lang

DOUGLAS S. LANG

JUSTICE
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 Annual Report of Great American Family Parks, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard W. Jackson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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 results of operations of the Company.    Date:  April 15, 2008By:/s/   Richard W. JacksonRichard W. Jackson
Chief Financial Officer
#### William Strong et al. *v.*Conservation Commission of the Town of Old Lyme et al.

*James E. Mattern,*in support of the petition.

Decided October 2, 1992

The named defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 28 Conn. App. 435, is granted, limited to the following question:

“Under the circumstances of this case, did the Appellate Court improperly place the burden on the conservation commission to establish that no feasible and prudent alternative existed to the plaintiffs’ application?”
**EXHIBIT
      21.1**





**LIGHTSTONE
      VALUE PLUS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC. AND
      SUBSIDIARIES**





**SUBSIDIARIES
      OF THE REGISTRANT**





**DECEMBER
      31, 2006**





The
      following represents the Lightstone Value Plus Real Estate Investment Trust,
      Inc. and Subsidiaries’ (the “Company”) and the Lightstone Value Plus REIT,
      L.P.’s (the “Operating Partnership”) operating subsidiaries, the Company and the
      Operating Partnership have a majority interest or control: LVP Michigan
      Multifamily Portfolio LLC, LVP Oakview Strip Center LLC, LVP St. Augustine
      Outlets LLC, Carriage Hill MI LLC, Carriage Park MI LLC, Macomb Manor MI LLC,
      and Scotsdale MI LLC, all of which are Delaware limited liability companies
      and
      100% owned.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Irma Reiss, Appellant, v Kingsbridge House & Unit of Jewish Home and Hospital for the Aged et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed January 24, 1975. The claimant contends that the board erred in considering certain medical evidence; by authorizing payment rates to be adjusted on a retroactive basis; and by approving a fee to an attorney who had represented the claimant although the attorney had been discharged prior to the decision appealed from. Issues of fact are for the board and the payment of benefits at tentative rates and/or reduced earnings is not prejudicial to the claimant. The board found upon its review of the record: "That medical evidence in the file indicates the claimant is partially disabled, and the rate should not be disturbed * * * Attorney fee of $350 is reduced to $150.” The decision is supported by substantial evidence and the claimant has not established any legal error. Decision affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Main, Larkin, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
11-5098-cv, 11-5334-cv Carrion v. Agfa Construction, Inc.
**UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS**
**FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**

**At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United**  **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 30**  **th day of October, two thousand thirteen.**  **PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge**  **, DENNIS JACOBS,**  **JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROSEMARY S. POOLER,**  **REENA RAGGI, RICHARD C. WESLEY,**  **PETER W. HALL, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,**  **GERARD E. LYNCH, DENNY CHIN,**  **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., SUSAN L. CARNEY,**  **CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges**  **.**

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x **JOSÉ E. CARRION, Plaintiff-Appellant**  **, - v.- 11-5098, 11-5334**  **AGFA CONSTRUCTION, INC. Defendant-Appellee**  **.**

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x**FOR APPELLANT:** Michael G. O’Neill, New York, NY **. FOR APPELLEE:**  Joseph M. Labuda, Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC, Lake Success, NY.

**ORDER** Following disposition of this appeal on June 13, 2013, an active judge of the Court requested a poll on whether to rehear the case en banc . A poll having been conducted and there being no majority favoring en banc review, rehearing en banc is hereby **DENIED**
. Gerard E. Lynch, Circuit Judge , dissents by opinion from the denial of rehearing en banc

.

FOR THE COURT: CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

2Carrion v. Agfa Construction, Inc. Dkt. Nos. 11-5098-cv, 11-5334-cv

GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judge, dissenting: 1 I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissent in Grochowski v. Phoenix Constr. , 318 F.3d 2 80, 89 (2d Cir. 2003) (Lynch, D.J., dissenting), and by the New York Court of Appeals in Cox v. 3 NAP Constr. Co. , 10 N.Y.3d 592 (2008). 4
§ 1243.202 When will ONRR monitor my financial solvency? ( a ) If you are presumptively financially solvent under § 1243.201(b), ONRR will determine your net worth as described under §§ 1243.201(b) and (c) to evaluate your financial solvency at least annually on the date we first determined that you demonstrated financial solvency as long as you have active appeals and each time you appeal a new order.
( b ) If you ask us to consult a business-information or credit-reporting service or program under § 1243.201(c), we will consult a service or program annually as long as you have active appeals and each time you appeal a new order.
( c ) If our bond-approving officer determines that you are no longer financially solvent, you must post a bond or other ONRR-specified surety instrument under subpart B.
#### In the Matter of Joseph J. Talerico, Petitioner, v. New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Determination unanimously confirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. (Review of a determination by the State Liquor Authority canceling petitioner’s liquor license, which proceeding was transferred to the Appellate Division by order of Onondaga Special Term.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
### §15501. Standards for pipeline rates, classifications, through routes, rules, and practices

(a) Reasonableness.—A rate, classification, rule, or practice related to transportation or service provided by a pipeline carrier subject to this part must be reasonable. A through route established by such a carrier must be reasonable.

(b) Nondiscrimination.—A pipeline carrier providing transportation subject to this part may not discriminate in its rates against a connecting line of any other pipeline, rail, or water carrier providing transportation subject to this subtitle or unreasonably discriminate against that line in the distribution of traffic that is not routed specifically by the shipper.

(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, §106(a), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 923.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 10701 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, §102(a).

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1996, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104–88, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of this title.
### §607. Effective date of chapter

This chapter shall take effect upon the organization of the Commission, except that this section and sections 151 and 154 of this title shall take effect July 1, 1934. The Commission shall be deemed to be organized upon such date as four members of the Commission have taken office.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title VII, §707, formerly title VI, §607, 48 Stat. 1105; renumbered title VII, §707, Pub. L. 98–549, §6(a), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2804.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning act June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, known as the Communications Act of 1934, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 609 of this title and Tables.
### SUBCHAPTER IV—PROCEDURAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
Exhibit 32.1

CLEARPOINT BUSINESS RESOURCES, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of ClearPoint Business Resources, Inc. (the
Company) does hereby certify with respect to this Form 10-K/A of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the Report) 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                         
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------
|Date: April 29, 2008
|                     | 
|By:                  |  | /s/    MICHAEL D.
TRAINA
|                     |  | Michael D. Traina       
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
### SUBCHAPTER II—CARRIERS BY AIR
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsDesigning Flightdeck ProceduresThe primary goal of this document is to provide guidance on how to design, implement, and evaluate flight deck procedures. It provides a process for developing procedures that meet clear and specific requirements. This document provides a brief overview of: 1) the requirements for procedures, 2) a process for the design of procedures, and 3) a process for the design of checklists. The brief overview is followed by amplified procedures that follow the above steps and provide details for the proper design, implementation and evaluation of good flight deck procedures and checklists.Document ID20160013263Acquisition SourceAmes Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsBarshi, Immanuel*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA United States)*Mauro, Robert*(Decision Research Corp. Eugene, OR, United States)*Degani, Asaf*(General Motors Technical Center Warren, MI, United States)*Loukopoulou, Loukia*(San Jose State Univ. Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredNovember 4, 2016Publication DateNovember 1, 2016Subject CategoryAir Transportation And SafetyReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2016-219421ARC-E-DAA-TN36007Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 330693.04.80.01.11Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.KeywordschecklistsflightdeckproceduresAvailable DownloadsNameType20160013263.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsIDRelationTitle20170005594See AlsoDesigning Flightdeck Procedures: Literature Resourcesvisibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
EXHIBIT #24(b)11




Consent of Independent Accountants



We hereby consent to the incorporation by
 reference in the Prospectus and 
Statement of Additional Information constituting
 parts of this Post-Effective 
Amendment No. 12 to the registration statement
 on Form N-1A (the 
"Registration Statement") of our report dated
 February 19, 1997, relating to 
the financial statements and financial
 highlights of Berwyn Income Fund, 
Inc. appearing in the December 31, 1996
 Annual Report to Shareholders, 
which is also incorporated by reference
 into the Registration Statement.  
We also consent to the reference to us
 under the heading "Independent 
Accountants" in the Statement of
 Additional Information and to the 
reference to us under the heading
 "Financial Highlights" in the Prospectus.


 

PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 25, 1997
Editorial Note on Part 982
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 64 FR 26640, May 14, 1999, and at 89 FR 38293, May 7, 2024.

§ 982.507 Rent to owner: Reasonable rent. ( a ) *PHA determination.* ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the PHA may not approve a lease until the PHA determines that the initial rent to owner is a reasonable rent.
( 2 ) The PHA must redetermine the reasonable rent: ( i ) Before any increase in the rent to owner;
( ii ) If there is a 10 percent decrease in the published FMR in effect 60 days before the contract anniversary (for the unit size rented by the family) as compared with the FMR in effect 1 year before the contract anniversary.
( iii ) If directed by HUD.
( 3 ) The PHA may also redetermine the reasonable rent at any other time.
( 4 ) At all times during the assisted tenancy, the rent to owner may not exceed the reasonable rent as most recently determined or redetermined by the PHA.
( b ) *Comparability.* The PHA must determine whether the rent to owner is a reasonable rent in comparison to rent for other comparable unassisted units. To make this determination, the PHA must consider: ( 1 ) The location, quality, size, unit type, and age of the contract unit; and
( 2 ) Any amenities, housing services, maintenance and utilities to be provided by the owner in accordance with the lease.
( c ) *Units assisted by low-income housing tax credits or assistance under HUD's HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program.* ( 1 ) *General.* For a unit receiving low-income housing tax credits (LIHTCs) pursuant to section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or receiving assistance under HUD's HOME Program (for which the regulations are found in 24 CFR part 92), a rent comparison with unassisted units is not required if the voucher rent does not exceed the rent for other LIHTC- or HOME-assisted units in the project that are not occupied by families with tenant-based assistance.
( 2 ) *LIHTC.* If the rent requested by the owner exceeds the LIHTC rents for non-voucher families, the PHA must perform a rent comparability study in accordance with program regulations and the rent shall not exceed the lesser of the: ( i ) Reasonable rent as determined pursuant to a rent comparability study; and
( ii ) The payment standard established by the PHA for the unit size involved.
( 3 ) *HOME Program.* [Reserved]
( d ) *Owner certification of rents charged for other units.* By accepting each monthly housing assistance payment from the PHA, the owner certifies that the rent to owner is not more than rent charged by the owner for comparable unassisted units in the premises. The owner must give the PHA information requested by the PHA on rents charged by the owner for other units in the premises or elsewhere.
[63 FR 23861, Apr. 30, 1998. Redesignated at 64 FR 26648, May 14, 1999; 79 FR 36164, June 25, 2014; 81 FR 80583, Nov. 16, 2016]
Exhibit 23.2 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued our report dated March 10, 2006,accompanying the 2005 consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 and our report dated March 10, 2006 (which reportexpresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to economic operational dependency on its parent) related to the 2005 financial statements of Accredited Mortgage Loan REIT Trust. We hereby consent to the incorporationby reference of said reports in Registration Statement No. 333-135787 on Form S-4, Registration Statement No. 333-117037, 333-117484, 333-119441, 333-117484-01 and 333-119441-01 on Forms S-3 and Registration Statements No. 333-128072, 333-124090,333-117828, 333-112490, 333-103671, 333-132867 and 333-136208 on Forms S-8. 

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP 

Irvine, California 

July 31, 2007
#### Sam Ferrero, appellee, v. L. D. Spaulding, sheriff of Bureau County, appellant.

Gen. No. 7,226.

Replevin suit for automobile upon which sheriff had levied execution as property of a third party. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Bureau county; the Hon. Joe A. Davis, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1923.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed August 13, 1923.

Scanlan & Massieon and J. L. Murphy, for appellant. J. T. Skinner and C. N. Hollerich, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Jett

delivered the opinion of the court.
### §39. Repealed. Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 654, §1(118)–(124), 65 Stat. 706

Section, acts Mar. 4, 1907, ch. 2918, §1, 34 Stat. 1338; May 24, 1922, ch. 199, 42 Stat. 584; Jan. 24, 1923, ch. 42, 42 Stat. 1205; June 5, 1924, ch. 264, 43 Stat. 427; Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 462, 43 Stat. 1181; May 10, 1926, ch. 277, §1, 44 Stat. 492; Jan. 12, 1927, ch. 27, §1, 44 Stat. 968, related to handling and disposition of reindeer in Alaska.