alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §591. Standards of export; establishment; shipping without certificate forbidden; hearings

It shall be unlawful for any person to ship or offer for shipment or for any carrier, or any steamship company, or any person to transport or receive for transportation to any foreign destination, except as provided in this chapter, any grapes or plums of any variety in packages which are not accompanied by a certificate issued under authority of the Secretary showing that such grapes or plums are of a Federal or State grade which meets the minimum of quality established for such variety and destination by the Secretary for shipment in export to such destination. The Secretary is authorized to prescribe, by regulations, the requirements, other than those of grades, which the fruit must meet before certificates are issued. The Secretary shall provide opportunity, by public hearing or otherwise for interested persons to examine and make recommendation with respect to any standard of export proposed to be established or designated, or regulation prescribed, by the Secretary for the purposes of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 86–687, §1, Sept. 2, 1960, 74 Stat. 734; Pub. L. 87–105, §1, July 26, 1961, 75 Stat. 220; Pub. L. 93–606, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1966.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1975—Pub. L. 93–606 inserted "and destination" and "to such destination" after "such variety" and "for shipment in export", respectively.

1961—Pub. L. 87–105 inserted "of any variety" and "for such variety" after "any grapes or plums" and "minimum of quality established", respectively.

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

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 86–687, as amended, which is classified to this chapter, is popularly known as the "Export Grape and Plum Act".
§ 935.2 Purpose. The purpose of this part is to provide— ( a ) For the civil administration of Wake Island;
( b ) Civil laws for Wake Island not otherwise provided for;
( c ) Criminal laws for Wake Island not otherwise provided for; and
( d ) A judicial system for Wake Island not otherwise provided for.
§ 772.15 Public availability of information. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, all information submitted to the regulatory authority under this part shall be made available for public inspection and copying at the local offices of the regulatory authority closest to the exploration area.
( b ) The regulatory authority shall keep information confidential if the person submitting it requests in writing, at the time of submission, that it be kept confidential and the information concerns trade secrets or is privileged commercial or financial information relating to the competitive rights of the persons intending to conduct coal exploration.
( c ) Information requested to be held as confidential under paragraph (b) of this section shall not be made publicly available until after notice and opportunity to be heard is afforded persons both seeking and opposing disclosure of the information.
#### Frances Van Blarcom et al., Respondents, v. Leonard G. Rogers, as Executor of Julia Rogers, Deceased, Appellant.

Order dated March 30, 1960 granting plaintiffs’ motion to file an amended complaint and bill of particulars unanimously affirmed, with $1 O' costs and disbursements to the. respondents. *679Order dated April 14, 1960 granting plaintiffs’ motion for leave to examine wit - nesses by written interrogatories unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the respondents. The defendant’s principal objection is not to the relief granted but rather that the same was not conditioned upon the striking of the certificate of readiness and the removal of the cause from the calendar. We have heretofore held that the court has some discretion in ordering or refusing to order a certificate of readiness stricken *(McGuire*v. *Pick,*8 AD 2d 800). While it would have been proper for Special Term to have granted the relief upon condition that the certificate be stricken we do not believe that the failure to do so constituted an abuse of discretion. However, in affirming Special Term’s unconditional granting of the relief sought we in no way detract from our stated position that generally the readiness rule must be strictly enforced *(Price*v. *Brody,*7 A D 2d 204; *McGuire*v. *Pick, supra).*The circumstances here present are such that the relief sought may be granted without doing violence to the rule and its purpose. The addition of allegations of ordinary negligence to those of gross negligence originally pleaded will not alter the basic factual issues to be tried. Nor does the granting of the interrogatories at this time run contrary to the rule. This is not the usual situation where one belatedly decides to examine an adverse party where, in possession of all needed information, he had a full opportunity to do so before having filed the readiness certificate. Leave to examine after a certificate of readiness has been filed will only be granted where special and unusual circumstances are present. Such leave was granted in *McGuire*v. *Pick (supra),*where the absence of the attorney from the country so that he could not move to strike the certificate was held a special circumstance. Similar leave was granted in *Amkraut*v. *Boanake Garment Go.*(5 A D 2d 863) where it was found that the circumstances of the accident were peculiarly within the knowledge of the plaintiff sought to be examined. Here the interrogatories are sought in order to obtain essential testimony of two nonresident witnesses — as distinguished from parties — who it was discovered would not appear at the trial as was anticipated. Moreover, such witnesses being nonresidents were beyond the reach of subpoena. Additionally there is not present here the element of “waiver” which can be found in the eases where post-readiness certificate examinations have been sought and denied *(Price*v. *Brody, supra).*Concur — -Breitel, J, P., Rabin, Valente and Bergan, JJ.
### **CHAPTER 6A—NATIONAL LABORATORY ACCREDITATION**

Sec.
138.
Definitions.
138a.
National Laboratory Accreditation Program.
138b.
Accreditation.
138c.
Samples.
138d.
Application.
138e.
Reporting.
138f.
Fees.
138g.
Public disclosure.
138h.
Regulations.
138i.
Effect of other laws.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 31.2


I, Don T. Scartz, certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of EMS
Technologies, Inc.;

2.       Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.       The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

         a)       designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

         b)       evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         c)       disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting; and

5.       The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

         a)       all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

         b)       any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting.


By:  /s/ Don T. Scartz                                            Date: 8/12/03
     -------------------------------------
     Don T. Scartz
     Executive Vice President,
     Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
     (Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 23

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
following Registration Statements:

| |     |                                                                                                                                                                     
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) | Registration
 Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-87153, 333-89308 and 333-123712) pertaining to
 the1999 Stock Option Plan and the 2005 Equity Compensation Incentive Plan;
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                     
| | (2) | Registration
 Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-168311)                                                                                                                   

of our report dated October 14, 2010, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Enzo Biochem, Inc., and our
report dated October 14, 2010, with respect to the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting of Enzo Biochem, Inc., included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) of Enzo Biochem, Inc.

|                   |                       
|------------------ | ----------------------
|                   | /s/
 Ernst & Young LLP
|                   |                       
|Jericho,
 New York |                       
|October
 14, 2010  |                       

---
### §2206. Custody of property and records

The Secretary of Agriculture shall have charge, in the building and premises appropriated to the department, of the library, furniture, fixtures, records, and other property appertaining to it, or acquired for use in its business.

(R.S. §525; Feb. 9, 1889, ch. 122, §§1, 4, 25 Stat. 659.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §525 derived from act May 15, 1862, ch. 72, §3, 12 Stat. 387 and Res. Dec. 15, 1868, No. 1, 15 Stat. 343.

Section was formerly classified to section 516 of Title 5 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, by Pub. L. 89–554, §1, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 378.

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

#### Change of Name

"Secretary of Agriculture" substituted in text for "Commissioner of Agriculture" pursuant to sections 1 and 4 of act Feb. 9, 1889, which are classified to section 2202 of this title. See, also, section 2205 of this title.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Functions of all officers, agencies, and employees of Department of Agriculture transferred, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of Agriculture by 1953 Reorg. Plan No. 2, §1, eff. June 4, 1953, 18 F.R. 3219, 67 Stat. 633, set out as a note under section 2201 of this title.
### §2329. Register of protected plant varieties

The Secretary shall maintain a register of descriptions of United States protected plant varieties.

(Pub. L. 91–577, title I, §9, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1543; Pub. L. 96–574, §4, Dec. 22, 1980, 94 Stat. 3350.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1980—Pub. L. 96–574 substituted "descriptions" for "published specifications", and struck out provisions requiring maintenance of a file for other information.
#### HAFLEY *&*SON *vs.*PATTERSON *&*TEMPLETON.

[ACTION COMMENCED BY OEIGINAL ATTACHMENT,]

*1. Affidavit; sufficiency of, in statement of ground for writ.*— In an affidavit for an attachment-, a statement that the defendants *‘‘*are fraudulently disposing of their *goods,”*is equivalent to the ease prescribed in the 6th subdivision of section 2928 of the Revised Code.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lawrence.

Tried before the Hon. James S. Clark.*

The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion,

W. P. Chitwood, for appellant,

H- C- Speake, *contra.*

No briefs on file,

*272B. F. SAFFOLD, J.

This suit was commenced by attachment, and the single question involved by the appeal is whether the affidavit contains a sufficient statement of any legal ground for its issue.

The affiant swears that the defendants, Patterson & Templeton, are “ fraudulently disposing of their goods, so as to evade the payment of their debts by ordinary process of law.” Is this equivalent, in substance, to the cases specified in section 2928 of the Revised Code, sub-division 6, “ when the defendant is about fraudulently to dispose of his property ” ? or sub-division 7, “when the defendant has fraudulently disposed of his property” ?

We think it is. In *Free v. Hukill,*(44 Ala. 197,) the word “ effects ” was held to be a sufficient appellation of “ property,” within the meaning of the statute. The term “ goods ” has as extensive a legal signification as “ effects,” and has even been applied in the civil law to real estate, though it has no such application in our law. The statute does not mean that the defendant must have disposed of, or be about to dispose of, all of his property. He may dispose of it all without giving ground for an attachment, if he does so honestly, and in good faith to ah who are interested. But he cannot dispose of any of it fraudulently without subjecting his property to this process.

In *Napper v. Noland,*(8 Porter, 218,) the affidavit stated that the defendant was about to remove his “ goods and effects” out of the State; and it was held to be defective, because it said that in consequence of such removal the ordinary process of law could not be served on him. There was no statement that the plaintiff would probably lose his debt, or have to sue for it in another State. Merely removing some *o$*a debtor’s property out of the State gave the plaintiff no right to the remedy of attachment. The fraudulent disposition of any of his property justifies the belief that the perpetrator will endeavor to make good his fraud against all of his creditors.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           7,324
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,728
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      5,556
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,795
<PP&E>                                          57,319
<DEPRECIATION>                                  38,052
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,733
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,268
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           836
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,024
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,733
<SALES>                                         34,432
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,432
<CGS>                                           25,169
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,169
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,259
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 844
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,383)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (213)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,170)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,170)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.38)
        

</TABLE>
### §226. Powers of Interstate Commerce Commission unaffected

Nothing in this chapter shall affect the power or jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission, nor confer upon the Secretary concurrent power or jurisdiction over any matter within the power or jurisdiction of such commission.

(Aug. 15, 1921, ch. 64, title IV, §406(a), 42 Stat. 169.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is comprised of subsec. (a) of section 406, of act Aug. 15, 1921. Subsecs. (b) to (e) of section 406, as amended, are classified to section 227 of this title.

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

#### Abolition of Interstate Commerce Commission and Transfer of Functions

Interstate Commerce Commission abolished and functions of Commission transferred, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104–88, to Surface Transportation Board effective Jan. 1, 1996, by section 1302 of Title 49, Transportation, and section 101 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of Title 49. References to Interstate Commerce Commission deemed to refer to Surface Transportation Board, a member or employee of the Board, or Secretary of Transportation, as appropriate, see section 205 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of Title 49.
#### In the Matter of Eloise J. Williams, Respondent, v. James M. Power et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, and Pelham Fritz et al., Appellants.

Judgment, in the form of an order, entered May 27, 1964, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs to any party, motion of petitioner Williams denied, and the Board of Elections directed to restore to the ballot for the primary election to be held June 2, 1964, the name of respondent-appellant as a candidate for Democratic nomination as Assemblyman for the Eleventh Assembly District of the County of New York. The evidence, in the absence of better proof as to where respondent Sutton abided during the period in dispute, establishes the maintenance by the respondent-appellant of a residence in the said Assembly District continuously since October 10, 1963. (See *Matter of Chance*v. *Power,*14 A D 2d 595, affd. 10 N Y 2d 792; cf. *Matter of Gladwin*v. *Power,*21 A D 2d 665, affd. 14 N Y 2d 771.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Eager, Steuer and Staley, JJ.
MEMORANDUM

TO: Deputy Inspector General

Assistant Inspector General for Investigation

Assistant Inspector General for Information Technology Audits

 and Computer Crime Investigations

FROM: Inspector General

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority to Open Investigative Cases 

I. DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me by Section 3(a) of the Inspector General Act of 

1978, as amended (the Act), 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3, I hereby delegate to you, your 

successor in function, and anyone serving for you in an acting capacity, the authority 

under Sections 4(a)(1), 6(a)(2), and 7(a) of the Act to open investigative cases in 

Investigation Services and Information Technology Audits and Computer Crime 

Investigations under the jurisdiction of this office, and to sign Advice of Investigation 

forms.

Specifically:

A. The Deputy Inspector General (DIG) is authorized to concur/non-concur on the 

opening of investigative cases involving allegations of misconduct by U.S. 

Department of Education employees. The Assistant Inspector General for 

Investigation (AIGI) and Assistant Inspector General for Information 

Technology Audits and Computer Crime Investigations (AIG/ITACCI) are 

authorized to open these investigative cases only with the concurrence of the 

DIG. This authority may not be redelegated.

B. The AIGI and AIG/ITACCI are authorized to open all other investigative cases.

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the 

authority delegated herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

II. RESERVATIONS

None.
Page 2 – Delegation of Authority

III. REDELEGATION

The AIGI and AIG/ITACCI may redelegate the authority delegated to him/her except 

as noted above, and except in those cases which involve allegations of criminal 

activity by elected or appointed officials.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department's Principal 

Delegation Control Officer, and supersedes delegations EF/EF/109 and EF/EFI/110. 

I hereby ratify action within the scope of this delegation taken by you prior to the date 

of certification.

 __________/s/___________ 

John P. Higgins, Jr.

OGC Clearance and Date: /s/ David Berthiaume, 7/13/2004

Certified Date: 7/23/2004

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: /s/ Naty G. Beetle

Control Number: EF/EFI/157
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 14, 2018

No. 04-18-00505-CR

Richard Alcorta GARZA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B15467

Honorable Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The State’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. The State’s Brief 

is due on January 28, 2019.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of December, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court