alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §§262 to 297. Repealed. Dec. 17, 1943, ch. 344, §1, 57 Stat. 600

Sections, acts May 6, 1882, ch. 126, §§1, 3, 6–13, 15, 16, 22 Stat. 59–61; July 5, 1884, ch. 220, 23 Stat. 115–118; Sept. 13, 1888, ch. 1015, §§5–11, 13, 14, 25 Stat. 477–479; Oct. 1, 1888, ch. 1064, §§1, 2, 25 Stat. 504; May 5, 1892, ch. 60, §§1–3, 5–8, 27 Stat. 25, 26; Nov. 3, 1893, ch. 14, §§1, 2, 28 Stat. 7, 8; July 7, 1898, No. 55, §1 (part), 30 Stat. 751; Apr. 30, 1900, ch. 339, §1, 31 Stat. 161; June 6, 1900, ch. 791, §1 (part), 31 Stat. 611; Mar. 3, 1901, ch. 845, §§1–3, 31 Stat. 1093; Apr. 29, 1902, ch. 641, §§1, 2, 4, 32 Stat. 176, 177; Apr. 27, 1904, ch. 1630, §5, 33 Stat. 428; Aug. 24, 1912, ch. 355, §1 (part), 37 Stat. 476, related to exclusion of Chinese and persons of Chinese descent from the United States or its Territories, and to various matters pertaining thereto, including the requirement of certificates of permission and identity by those who might be entitled to entry, exemptions, duties of masters of vessels and Federal officers, arrest, hearing and removal of Chinese unlawfully within the United States or its Territories, habeas corpus, and forfeitures and penalties for violation of the exclusion laws.
Docket Number FAA-2014-0230
17.402 Limitations. ( a ) Leader company contracting is to be used only when— ( 1 ) The leader company has the necessary production know-how and is able to furnish required assistance to the follower(s);
( 2 ) No other source can meet the Government's requirements without the assistance of a leader company;
( 3 ) The assistance required of the leader company is limited to that which is essential to enable the follower(s) to produce the items; and
( 4 ) Its use is authorized in accordance with agency procedures.
( b ) When leader company contracting is used, the Government shall reserve the right to approve subcontracts between the leader company and the follower(s).
### §1733. Terrorist lookout committees

#### (a) Establishment

The Secretary of State shall require a terrorist lookout committee to be maintained within each United States mission to a foreign country.

#### (b) Purpose

The purpose of each committee established under subsection (a) shall be—

(1) to utilize the cooperative resources of all elements of the United States mission in the country in which the consular post is located to identify known or potential terrorists and to develop information on those individuals;

(2) to ensure that such information is routinely and consistently brought to the attention of appropriate United States officials for use in administering the immigration laws of the United States; and

(3) to ensure that the names of known and suspected terrorists are entered into the appropriate lookout databases.

#### (c) Composition; chair

The Secretary shall establish rules governing the composition of such committees.

#### (d) Meetings

Each committee established under subsection (a) shall meet at least monthly to share information pertaining to the committee's purpose as described in subsection (b)(2).

#### (e) Periodic reports to the Secretary of State

Each committee established under subsection (a) shall submit monthly reports to the Secretary of State describing the committee's activities, whether or not information on known or suspected terrorists was developed during the month.

#### (f) Repealed. Pub. L. 113–235, div. J, title VII, §7034(i), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2624

#### (g) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to implement this section.

(Pub. L. 107–173, title III, §304, May 14, 2002, 116 Stat. 554; Pub. L. 113–235, div. J, title VII, §7034(i), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2624.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2014—Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 113–235 struck out subsec. (f). Text read as follows: "The Secretary of State shall submit a report on a quarterly basis to the appropriate committees of Congress on the status of the committees established under subsection (a) of this section."
#### 14.104 Types of contracts.

Firm-fixed-price contracts shall be used when the method of contracting is sealed bidding, except that fixed-price contracts with economic price adjustment clauses may be used if authorized in accordance with 16.203 when some flexibility is necessary and feasible. Such clauses must afford all bidders an equal opportunity to bid.

[48 FR 42171, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 1737, Jan. 11, 1985; 50 FR 52429, Dec. 23, 1985]
#### §§ 776.72-776.75 [Reserved]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

STEVEN RENE GUZMAN

- RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 774 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of May, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
No. 8508.

#### Yoder *v.*Bevard et al.

(Decided December 18, 1903.)

Error- to Circuit Court of Wayne county.

*Mr. W. F. Kean*and *Mr. A. B. Metz-,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. M. L. Smyser,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Btjrket, C.J., Spear, Davis, Shatjck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of John J. Stasiak, Jr., Petitioner, v Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law to review a determination of the State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated August 9, 1978, which affirmed an order of the State Division of Human Rights finding no probable cause to believe that the respondent, Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices based on race, color or sex. Petitioner, a white male, contends that he was terminated from his position as an auditor with Montgomery Ward despite his seniority so that Montgomery Ward could preserve its minority affirmative action record. In support of this contention, petitioner has alleged that his supervisor told him he was being terminated because of a reduction in work force, but that two female auditors, one of whom was Black, were retained despite the fact that they had less seniority. In response to petitioner’s complaint filed with the State Division of Human Rights alleging both race and sex discrimination, Montgomery Ward contends that petitioner was the only auditor whose work performance was questionable and that, therefore, he was laid off first despite his seniority. In support of this contention, Montgomery Ward submitted a recent evaluation critical of petitioner’s work and a salary sheet indicating that petitioner had not received a raise in over two years. Petitioner replied that he had never been informed that his performance was questionable. Following an investigation, the complaint was dismissed for lack of probable cause and the Human Rights Appeal Board affirmed the dismissal. This proceeding ensued. In \ order to sustain a dismissal of a complaint before the complainant has had his opportunity to present his case in a formal manner, it must appear virtually as a matter of law that the complaint lacks merit *(Glen Cove*, *Public Schools v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd.,*58 AD2d 591, 592; *Mayo v Hopeman Lbr. & Mfg. Co.,*33 AD2d 310, 313; cf. *Matter of \ Commissioner of N. Y. State Dept, of Civ. Serv. v State Human Rights*j *Appeal Bd.,*64 AD2d 999). We conclude that petitioner has not submitted / any evidence to support his speculation that his termination was motivated ' by race or sex discrimination. On the contrary, there is evidence in the record that petitioner was terminated for other reasons. Accordingly, the determination must be confirmed. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
#### Dimitrios Psomatithis, Appellant, v Transoceanic Cable Ship Co., Inc., Respondent.

[834 NYS2d 318]

In an action, *838inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries pursuant to the Jones Act (46 USC Appendix § 688), the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (HurkinTorres, J.), dated December 22, 2005, which denied his motion, in effect, to vacate his default and to restore the action to the trial calendar, and (2) an order of the same court dated April 19, 2006, which denied his motion, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, but which was, in actuality, for leave to reargue his prior motion.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated April 19, 2006, is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated December 22, 2005, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

An action dismissed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 (b) may be restored if the plaintiff demonstrates both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see *Jones v New York City Hous. Auth.,*13 AD3d 489 [2004]; *Kandel v Hoffman,*309 AD2d 904, 905 [2003]). Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he had a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion, in effect, to vacate his default and to restore the action to the trial calendar *(see*CPLR 5015 [a]; *Echevarria v Waters, 8*AD3d 330 [2004]).

The plaintiffs subsequent motion, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, was not based on new evidence that was unavailable to him at the time of the original motion. Thus, the subsequent motion was, in actuality, one for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see *Matter of Phillips v Goord,*16 AD3d 422 [2005]; *Meehan v David J. Hodder & Son, Inc.,*13 AD3d 593 [2004]). Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and Covello, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 842
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

§ 842.47 Delegations of authority. ( a ) *Settlement authority.* ( 1 ) The Secretary of the Air Force has the authority to: ( i ) Settle claims for payment of $100,000 or less.
( ii ) Settle claims for more than $100,000, pay the first $100,000, and report the excess to the Department of the Treasury for payment.
( iii ) Deny claims in any amount.
( 2 ) The Judge Advocate General, Deputy Judge Advocate General, Director of Civil Law, and the Chief, Deputy Chief and Branch Chiefs, Claims and Tort Litigation Staff are FCCs and have delegated authority to: ( i ) Settle claims for payment of $100,000 or less.
( ii ) Deny claims in any amount.
( 3 ) The SJAs of the Air Force component commander of the U.S. geographic combatant commands are FCC for claims arising in their respective combatant command Areas of Responsibility (AORs) and may deny claims of $50,000 or less and will pay claims filed in any amount when payment is for $50,000 or less.
( b ) *Redelegating settlement authority.* A settlement authority appointed as a FCC in paragraph (a) of this section may appoint one or more subordinate judge advocates or civilian attorneys to act as FCC, and redelegate all or part of that settlement authority to such persons.
( c ) *Settlement negotiations.* A settlement authority may settle a claim in any sum within its settlement authority, regardless of the amount claimed. Send uncompromised claims in excess of the delegated authority through claims channels to the level with settlement authority. Unsuccessful negotiations at one level do not bind higher authority.
( d ) *Special exceptions.* Do not settle claims for medical malpractice without HQ USAF/JACC approval.
[81 FR 83692, Nov. 22, 2016]
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Robert E. Schulze, President of Bridgford Foods Corporation (the Company),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:



|(1) |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
August 2,
2002 (the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                       

Dated: September 13, 2002



| | /s/ Robert E. Schulze
Robert E. Schulze, President
(Principal Financial Officer)
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third Department,

October, 1964

(October 13, 1964)

#### Walter Swidunovich et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. State of New York, Appellant-Respondent.

Judgment reversed, without costs, suant to the stipulation of the parties, and a new trial granted. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.
### §§921a, 921b. Repealed. Pub. L. 115–334, title VI, §6602(b)(13), (14), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4777

Section 921a, Pub. L. 92–12, §1, May 7, 1971, 85 Stat. 29, related to policy of financing of rural telephone program.

Section 921b, Pub. L. 92–324, §1, June 30, 1972, 86 Stat. 390, related to policy of expansion of markets for debentures.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-27-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-29-2000
<CASH>                                          20,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    504,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               552,000
<PP&E>                                         331,100
<DEPRECIATION>                                 139,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 803,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          228,300
<BONDS>                                        275,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,100
<OTHER-SE>                                     263,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   803,000
<SALES>                                        624,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               624,400
<CGS>                                          336,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  621,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,100)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,800)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,300)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,300)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.41)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 4.1


                            NAM TAI ELECTRONICS, INC.

                         AMENDMENT TO WARRANT AGREEMENT

     THIS AMENDMENT (the "Amendment"), dated as of April 1, 2000, is agreed to
between Nam Tai Electronics, Inc., a British Virgin Islands international
business company (the "Company"), and U.S. Stock Transfer Corporation, as
warrant agent (the "Warrant Agent").

WHEREAS, the Company and the Warrant Agent entered into a warrant agreement
dated November 24, 1997 (the "Warrant Agreement");

WHEREAS , the Company desires to amend the Warrant Agreement to extend the
expiration date of the Warrants from November 24, 2000 to November 24, 2002;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual agreements herein
set forth, the parties agree as follows:

1.   Section 2.1 of the Warrant Agreement be amended to read as follows:

     Each Warrant shall entitle the registered holder of the certificate
     representing such Warrant to purchase at the Warrant Price therefor one
     Common Share, subject to the adjustments provided for in Section 9 hereof,
     at any time prior to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on November 24, 2002.

2.   That the Warrant Agent be authorized to modify the Warrant certificates to
     reflect the changes of this Amendment.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be duly
     executed, as of the day and year first above written:

     NAM TAI ELECTRONICS, INC.                U.S. STOCK TRANSFER CORPORATION



     By:  /s/ Tadao Murakami                   By:  /s/ Enrique Artaza
        -----------------------------              ------------------------
          Tadao Murakami                            Enrique Artaza
          Chairman                                  Senior Vice President
#### In the Matter of Raymond A. Occhino, Respondent, v. Donald S. Hostetter et al., Constituting the New York State Liquor Authority, Appellants.

Order unanimously reversed in the interests of justice, answer in its present form stricken, with leave to serve a new and proper answer within 20 days after service of a copy of the order with notice of entry thereof, with costs to petitioner-respondent against the appellants. Memorandum: 7804, subd. (e) CPLR required the respondents to file with their answer a record of the proceedings under review. This they failed to do. Under this same section Special Term had the power to order the defect or omission to be supplied. This was not done. The answer is therefore dismissed and in the interests of justice the respondents are granted permission to interpose a new and proper answer. (Appeal from an order of Erie Special Term directing respondents to approve petitioner’s application for removal of retail liquor store and to perform their duties in relation thereto.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecehio, JJ.
#### 1032.7000 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes policies and procedures for electronic submission and processing of payment requests.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          81,606
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                76,175
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     73,876
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         264,552
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           265,575
<LOANS>                                      1,030,780
<ALLOWANCE>                                     14,836
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,570,458
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,425,895
<SHORT-TERM>                                        90
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             13,712
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,152
<OTHER-SE>                                     105,390
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 130,761
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 93,677
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               17,326
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 4,222
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               115,225
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              42,237
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              42,966
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           72,259
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,485
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 50,828
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,425
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      18,035
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,035
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.80
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.49
<LOANS-NON>                                     12,373
<LOANS-PAST>                                       161
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 2,544
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                12,822
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,728
<RECOVERIES>                                       919
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               14,836
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             9,220
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          5,616
        

</TABLE>
### §4816. Investigations

#### (a) Purposes

The Secretary may make such investigations as the Secretary considers necessary—

(1) for the effective administration of this chapter; or

(2) to determine whether a person subject to this chapter has engaged, or is about to engage, in an act that constitutes, or will constitute, a violation of this chapter or an order, rule, or regulation issued under this chapter.

#### (b) Oaths and affirmations; subpenas

(1) For the purpose of such investigation, the Secretary may administer oaths and affirmations, subpoena witnesses, compel their attendance, take evidence, and require the production of any records that are relevant to the inquiry.

(2) Such attendance of witnesses and the production of such records may be required from any place in the United States.

#### (c) Judicial enforcement; contempt proceedings; service of process

(1) In the case of contumacy, or refusal to obey a subpoena, by a person, the Secretary may invoke the aid of a court of the United States with jurisdiction over such investigation or proceeding, or where such person resides or does business, in requiring the attendance and testimony of such person and the production of such records.

(2) The court may issue an order requiring such person to appear before the Secretary to produce records or to give testimony touching the matter under investigation.

(3) A failure to obey an order issued under this section by the court may be punished by the court as a contempt thereof.

(4) Process in such case may be served in the judicial district in which such person is an inhabitant or wherever such person may be found.

(Pub. L. 99–198, title XVI, §1627, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1621.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1986, see section 1631 of Pub. L. 99–198, set out as a note under section 4801 of this title.