alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1253.204-70 Administrative matters—agency specified forms. The following forms are prescribed for use in the closeout of applicable contracts, as specified in 1204.804-570: ( a ) *Department of Transportation (DOT) Form DOT F 4220.4, Contractor's Release.* Form DOT F 4220.4 is authorized for local reproduction and a copy may be obtained at *https://www.transportation.gov/assistant-secretary-administration/procurement/tar-part-1253-forms .*
( b ) *Form DOT F 4220.45, Contractor's Assignment of Refunds, Rebates, Credits, and Other Amounts.* Form DOT F 4220.45 is authorized for local reproduction and a copy may be obtained at *https://www.transportation.gov/assistant-secretary-administration/procurement/tar-part-1253-forms .*
( c ) *Form DOT F 4220.46, Cumulative Claim and Reconciliation Statement.* Form DOT F 4220.46 is authorized for local reproduction and a copy may be obtained at *https://www.transportation.gov/assistant-secretary-administration/procurement/tar-part-1253-forms .*
( d ) *Department of Defense DD Form 882, Report of Inventions and Subcontracts.* DD Form 882 can be found at *https://www.esd.whs.mil/Directives/forms/ .*
#### 1304.602 General.
### §1554. Special immigrant inspectors at Washington

Special immigrant inspectors, not to exceed three, may be detailed for duty in the service at Washington.

(Mar. 2, 1895, ch. 177, §1, 28 Stat. 780; Ex. Ord. No. 6166, §14, June 10, 1933.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Ex. Ord. No. 6166, is authority for the substitution of "service" for "bureau." See note set out under section 1551 of this title.

Section was formerly classified to section 342g 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. Thereafter, it was classified to section 111 of this title prior to its transfer to this section.

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

#### Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Functions

For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions, and treatment of related references, see note set out under section 1551 of this title.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Functions vested by law in Attorney General, Department of Justice, or any other officer or any agency of that Department, with respect to inspection at regular inspection locations at ports of entry of persons, and documents of persons, entering or leaving United States, were to have been transferred to Secretary of the Treasury by 1973 Reorg. Plan No. 2, §2, eff. July 1, 1973, 38 F.R. 15932, 87 Stat. 1091, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees. The transfer was negated by section 1(a)(1), (b) of Pub. L. 93–253, Mar. 16, 1974, 88 Stat. 50, which repealed section 2 of 1973 Reorg. Plan No. 2, eff. July 1, 1973.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Dynamic Materials Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Yvon Pierre Cariou, President and Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(i)                  The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)               The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 

October 28, 2010

 

 
|   | /s/ Yvon Pierre Cariou                 |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Yvon Pierre Cariou                     |
|   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | of  Dynamic Materials Corporation      |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Dynamic Materials Corporation and will be retained by DynamicMaterials Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York v. George Dasher.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### George R. Todd, Respondent, v. Gull Contracting Co., Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants. American Bridge Division, United States Steel Corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, in which the defendants served a third-party complaint, said defendants and third-party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 21, 1964, which, upon application of the third-party defendant pursuant to CPLR 1010 *severed*the third-party action from the main action. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Although the application for the severance was made on insufficient notice (CPLR 2212, 2214), the defect in service was waived by the appellants’ opposition to the application on the merits *(Miot*v. *JoCarl Realty*Corp., 20 A D 2d 664; *Matter of Glasser,*180 Misc. 311). We find no abuse of discretion in the severance of the third-party action from the main action, in view of the tardiness of the institution of the third-party action and the resultant delay and prejudice both to *the*plaintiff and to the third-party defendant. The order of severance is appealable (CPLR 5701, subd. [a], par. 2). We note that *Cohen*v. *Nadelman*(269 App. Div. 951) is both distinguishable and overruled (cf. *Winn*v. *Warren Lbr. Co.,*11 A D 2d 713). Beldoek, P. J., ICleinfeld, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
## Proposed Rule: Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements Under the Greenhouse Gas

Reporting Rule Meeting Documentation Date Staff Contact In formation (Name, email, phone #) Name of Organization (Attach list of all attendees names and emails if possible) Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability , reporting requirements, etc.) Written Comments Provided? Did they also submit to Docket? Date sent to

EPA

- CCD

3/17 /16 Cate Hight Hight.cate@epa.gov 202

- 343

- 9230 Julius Banks Banks.julius@epa.gov 202

- 564

- 0957 Rachel Schmeltz Schmeltz.rachel@epa.gov 202

- 343

- 9124 Felicia Ruiz Ruiz.felicia@epa.gov In person: Bruce Watzman, National Mining Association bwatzman@nma.org Rusty Ashcraft, Alliance Coal, LLC Rusty.askcraft@arlp.com By phone: Jim Meier, Arch Coal Keith Mohn, Arch Coal Crellin Scott, Murray Energy Proposed revisions to Subpart FF

- Underground coal mines. Focus on proposed changes to mo nitoring provisions for methane emissions from ventilation. No ne provided at meeting ; expected to submit to the docket N/A
Exhibit 31.1
 
      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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    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; andd)
    
    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 (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  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;
andb)
    
    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.
 May 28, 2010
    /s/ Eugene S. KahnEugene S. KahnChief Executive Officer
162 So. 413

#### ANZALONE v. ANZALONE.

No. 33238.

May 27, 1935.

See, also, 182 La. 234, 161 So. 594.

Ellis H. -Bostick, Jr., of Amite, for appellant.

Rownd & Warner, of Hammond, for appellee.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

The defendant has appealed from a judgment granting her husband a divorce. It was granted on the ground of separation for more than a year under a decree of separation from bed and board. In defense of this suit,. the wife pleaded that *661she and her husband had become reconciled. On the trial of the case, after the plaintiff had proved by the testimony of several witnesses that there had not been a reconciliation between him and his wife, she offered to testify in contradiction of the testimony of his witnesses. His attorney then filed a plea of estoppel and objected to her claiming that there was a reconciliation, because, after the decree of separation from bed and board was rendered, and after the date on which she •claimed there was a reconciliation, she sued her husband and obtained judgment for a sum of money, basing her suit upon the allegation that she and her husband were living separate and apart under a decree of separation from bed and board. The judge sustained the objection, and no ■other evidence was offered by the wife in this suit. The ruling was correct. The •defendant had no right to contradict her judicial declaration, which was the basis for the suit in which she obtained a judgment against her husband. A judicial declaration is full proof against the party making it, and cannot be withdrawn except on the ground that it was made in •error of fact. Rev. Civ. Code, art. 2291. There was no suggestion of error of fact ■on the part of the defendant in this case. Her attorney did not argue the case in this ■court, or file a brief in support of the appeal, from which it might well be inferred that the appellant has not much faith in her complaint.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### 1436.602-4 Selection authority.

The HCA is authorized to serve as the designated selection authority.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1305

JUDY MARIE MCCREARY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

VAUGHN & BASSETT FURNITURE COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

JOHN D. BASSETT, III, President/CEO,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Wallace W. Dixon,

Magistrate Judge. (1:05-cv-00413-WWD)

Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 17, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Judy Marie McCreary, Appellant Pro Se. Sarah Helen Roane,

OLGETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Greensboro, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*

The parties consented to exercise of jurisdiction by a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Judy Marie McCreary appeals the magistrate judge’s order

dismissing her discrimination and retaliation action under Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as a sanction under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37(d).* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny McCreary’s motion for appointment of

counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge.

See McCreary v. Vaughn & Bassett Furniture Co., No. 1:05-cv-00413-

WWD (M.D.N.C. Mar. 21, 2007). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         124,126
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          38,681
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               101,985
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    385,986
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         382,039
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           384,390
<LOANS>                                      1,758,161
<ALLOWANCE>                                     23,054
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,915,764
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,451,936
<SHORT-TERM>                                   112,946
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             30,252
<LONG-TERM>                                     23,787
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        44,994
<OTHER-SE>                                     251,849
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,915,764
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 37,075
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               11,538
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,361
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                49,974
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              18,299
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,191
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           30,484
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      920
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               3,105
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 25,269
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,987
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      16,987
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,960
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.48
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.70
<LOANS-NON>                                     11,873
<LOANS-PAST>                                     3,578
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   213
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  5,784
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                22,646
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      719
<RECOVERIES>                                       207
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               23,054
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            23,054
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00136-CR

Tania Georgina MENDOZA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-CR-0068W

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 20, 2011

DISMISSED

On March 1, 2011, this court issued an order stating this appeal would be dismissed 

pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification that shows appellant has the 

right of appeal was made part of the appellate record on or before March 31, 2011. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; see also Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174, 175-76 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio 2003, order). Appellant did not respond. The record does not contain a certification 

that shows the defendant has the right of appeal; to the contrary, the trial court certification in the 
04-11-00136-CR

- 2 -

record states “this criminal case is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of 

appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not 

exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; 

therefore, the clerk’s record supports the trial court’s certification that defendant has no right of 

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

25.2(d).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
Exhibit 31.2


                         CERTIFICATION OF VICE PRESIDENT
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Peter Porath, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this  quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of Federal  Mortgage
Corporation of Puerto Rico, Inc.

2.   Based on my knowledge,  this  quarterly  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 quarterly
report;

3.   Based on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  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 quarterly report;

4.   The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a)   designed such  disclosure  controls and  procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b)   evaluated the  effectiveness  of the registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures  as of a date  within  90  days  prior  to the  filing  date  of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions  about the effectiveness
of the  disclosure  controls and  procedures  based on our  evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date.

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

a)   all  significant  deficiencies  in the  design  or  operation  of  internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)   any fraud,  whether or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6.   The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant  changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective  actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  August 15, 2005


/s/ Peter Porath
----------------
Peter Porath
Vice President
#### PEOPLE, Respondent, v. REGAN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 16, 1903.)

Proceeding by the people of the state of New York against Martin Regan.

No opinion. Motion denied.
No. 8193.

#### Hutchins et al. *v.*Seney et al.

(Decided January 12, 1904.)

Error to Circuit Court of Hancock county.

*Mr. A. G. Fuller,*for plaintiffs in error.

*572
      *Mr. Henry W. Beney,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ., concur.
1032.770-7 Clause. The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1052.232-70, Limitation of Government's Obligation, in ( a ) Solicitations and resultant contracts when incremental funding of fixed-price, time-and-material or labor-hour contract via a CR is anticipated; or
( b ) Contracts or orders when incremental funding of a fixed-price, time-and-material or labor-hour contract is authorized and the Treasury Departmental Office or Bureau is operating under a CR (see 1032.770-4); and
( c ) The CO shall insert the information required in paragraphs (a) and (c) of the clause.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Dominick Fuina, Respondent, v. Alco Products, Inc., Appellant, and Special Disability Fund, Respondent. Workman’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

The determinative finding was that “ the employer had no knowledge of a prior permanent disability within the meaning of Section 15, Subdivision 8, of the Workmen’s Compensation Law and that the self insured employer is not entitled to Section 15, Subdivision 8, relief.” Contrary to appellant’s contention, we find no significance in the use of the word “ disability ”; as we believe that the board intended “ impairment ” and that, in so thoroughly familiar a field, this was no more than inadvertent error. Coneededly, claimant suffered from a congenital defect in that his fifth lumbar vertebra was ankylosed or fused to the sacrum; and upon the record of claimant’s pre-employment physical examination, made some seven months prior to the accident, it was noted by a rubber-stamp indorsement, in the imprint of which the words *“*spine defect ” were interpolated in longhand, that: “This man has a permanent physical impairment diagnosed as spine defect which may be an obstacle to employment ”. The board was not bound to find that such a legend, expressive of a legal principle or conclusion and rubber-stamped upon a report of physical examination, constituted preponderant evidence that the self-insured employer had reached a considered and “informed” judgment and decision *(Matter of Alpert*v. *Tower Brand Yarn Corp.,*16 A D 2d 193, 194; *Matter of Weinberger*v. *Zeibert & Sons,*2 A D 2d 908) as to the condition and whether, in fact, it was likely to be a hindrance or obstacle to employment. Indeed, the plant physician, although testifying generally to a physical handicap, at one point was asked whether the handicap was a hindrance to employment, and answered, “Technically, yes”; and his report of physical examination listed as other “impairments” such seemingly inconsequential defects as a deformity of the bridge of the nose, a scar above it and a sear in the eyebrow. He testified that the “ B ” employment classification to which claimant had been assigned included more than 50% of appellant’s employees and had “no *707significance in determining whether or not the person is a handicapped person It may be noted, parenthetically, that the board did not find, and upon this record was not bound to find claimant’s disability “materially and substantially greater” because of the pre-existing defect. (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 15, subd. 8, par. [d].) Decision affirmed, with costs to respondent Special Fund. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.