alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### City Center Real Estate, Inc., Respondent, v David M. Berger, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[833 NYS2d 75]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered February 15, 2006, which, in this action involving a dispute over a real estate brokerage fee, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, declaring the cobrokerage agreement at issue unenforceable, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although it is true that defendant-appellant as an attorney is authorized to act as a real estate broker under Real Property Law § 442-f, that statute does not confer upon him rights *268greater than those of a licensed broker, and a licensed broker may not recover a commission based on a cobrokerage agreement involving an unlicensed cobroker *(see*Real Property Law §§ 442, 442-d; *and see Siegel v Henry Fippinger, Inc.,*264 App Div 203, 204 [1942]; *Meltzer v Crescent Leaseholds, Ltd.,*315 F Supp 142 [SD NY 1970], *affd*442 F2d 293 [1971]). The intent of the licensing requirement under the Real Property Law, i.e., “to protect the public from inept, inexperienced, or dishonest persons who might perpetrate or aid in the perpetration of fraud” *(Kavian v Vernah Homes Co.,*19 AD3d 649, 650 [2005]), would be undermined if such cobrokerage agreements were enforceable, even in part. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert G. Gargus, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Applied Micro Circuits Corporation; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/    ROBERT G.
GARGUSRobert G. GargusSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date: November 2, 2012
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

In connection with the Annual Report of DNB Financial Corporation (the "Registrant") on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William S. Latoff, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



/s/ WILLIAM S. LATOFF William S. Latoff Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 22, 2011


---



QuickLinks
#### 252.225-7026 Acquisition Restricted to Products or Services from Afghanistan.

As prescribed in 225.7703-*4*(c), use the following clause:

# Acquisition Restricted to Products or Services From Afghanistan (SEP 2013)

(a) *Definitions.* As used in this clause—

(1) “Product from Afghanistan” means a product that is mined, produced, or manufactured in Afghanistan.

(2) “Service from Afghanistan” means a service including construction that is performed in Afghanistan predominantly by citizens or permanent resident aliens of Afghanistan.

(b) The Contractor shall provide only products from Afghanistan or services from Afghanistan under this contract.

(End of clause)

[78 FR 59859, Sept. 30, 2013]
#### 26.402 Policy.

The Government encourages executive agencies and their contractors, to the maximum extent practicable and safe, to donate excess apparently wholesome food to nonprofit organizations that provide assistance to food-insecure people in the United States.
Functional Statements > Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

- OSERS Introduction
- OSERS Immediate Office
- Rehabilitation Services Administration
- Office of Special Education Programs

**Organization Charts**

- OSERS Organizational Chart   (PDF, 127KB) 
- OSEP Organizational Chart   (PDF, 166KB)
- RSA Organizational Chart   (PDF, 157)

OSERS Delegations of Authority may be found at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/or/delegations/osers.html
215.403-3 Requiring data other than certified cost or pricing data. Follow the procedures at PGI 215.403-3. ( a ) In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2306a(d)— ( 1 ) Contracting officers shall not determine the price of a contract or subcontract to be fair and reasonable based solely on historical prices paid by the Government (see PGI 215.403-3(4)); and
( 4 ) In lieu of the factors for consideration listed in FAR 15.403-3(a)(4), a determination by the head of the contracting activity (see PGI 215.403-3(7)) that it is in the best interest of the Government to make the award to an offeror that does not make a good faith effort to comply with a reasonable request to submit data other than certified cost or pricing data shall be based on consideration of pertinent factors, including the following: ( i ) The effort to obtain the data.
( ii ) Availability of other sources of supply of the item or service.
( iii ) The urgency or criticality of the Government's need for the item or service.
( iv ) Reasonableness of the price of the contract, subcontract, or modification of the contract or subcontract based on information available to the contracting officer.
( v ) Rationale or justification made by the offeror for not providing the requested data.
( vi ) Risk to the Government if award is not made.
( c ) *Commercial products or commercial services.* For determinations of price reasonableness of major weapon systems acquired as commercial products, see 234.7002(e).
[72 FR 30278, May 31, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 76940, Dec. 31, 2012; 85 FR 34532, June 5, 2020; 87 FR 65504, Oct. 28, 2022; 88 FR 6583, Jan. 31, 2023; 89 FR 46808, May 30, 2024]
215.402 Pricing policy. ( a ) ( i ) Pursuant to section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239)— ( A ) The contracting officer is responsible for determining if the information provided by the offeror is sufficient to determine price reasonableness. This responsibility includes determining whether information on the prices at which the same or similar items have previously been sold is adequate for evaluating the reasonableness of price, and determining the extent of uncertified cost data that should be required in cases in which price information is not adequate;
( B ) The contracting officer shall not limit the Government's ability to obtain any data that may be necessary to support a determination of fair and reasonable pricing by agreeing to contract terms that preclude obtaining necessary supporting information; and
( C ) When obtaining uncertified cost data, the contracting officer shall require the offeror to provide the information in the form in which it is regularly maintained in the offeror's business operations.
( ii ) Follow the procedures at PGI 215.402 when conducting cost or price analysis, particularly with regard to acquisitions for sole source commercial products or commercial services.
[72 FR 30278, May 31, 2007, as amended at 83 FR 4443, Jan. 31, 2018; 88 FR 6583, Jan. 31, 2023]
(Republished)

#### In the Matter of Iris R. Lewis. Jewish Child Care Association of New York, Appellant, Mollie Lewis et al., Respondents.

Order, entered on June 20, 1962, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The order of this court entered on June 20, 1963 is vacated. No opinion. Concur — ■ Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6064

OVARIAS VERDAD CRIEGO,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNKNOWN RESPONDENT,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:11-hc-02140-FL)

Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 3, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ovarias Verdad Criego, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ovarias Verdad Criego seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Criego has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
#### 252.239-7005--252.239-7006 [Reserved]
2115.370 Applicability. FAR subpart 15.3 has no practical application to the FEGLI Program because prospective contractors (insurance companies) are considered for inclusion in the FEGLI Program in accordance with criteria provided in 5 U.S.C. chapter 87, LIFAR 2109.7001, and the following: ( a ) Applications must be signed by an individual with legal authority to enter into a contract on behalf of the company for the dollar level of claims and expenses anticipated.
( b ) Applications will be reviewed for evidence of substantial compliance in the following areas: ( 1 ) *Management:* Stable management with experience pertinent to the life insurance industry and, in particular, large group management; sufficient operating experience to enable OPM to evaluate past and expected future performance.
( 2 ) *Marketing:* Past ability to attract and retain large group contracts; steady or increasing amount of group life insurance in force.
( 3 ) *Legal expertise:* Demonstrated competence in researching, compiling, and implementing various Federal and State laws that may impact payment of benefits; ability to defend legal challenges to payment of benefits.
( 4 ) *Financial condition:* Establishment of firm budget projections and demonstrated success in keeping costs at or below those projections on a regular basis; evidence of the ability to sustain operations in the future and to meet obligations under the contract OPM might enter into with the company; adequate reserve levels; assets exceeding liabilities.
( 5 ) *Establishment of office:* Ability to establish an administrative office capable of assessing, tracking, and paying claims.
( 6 ) *Internal controls:* Ability to establish and maintain a system of internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the payment of claims and other expenses will be in compliance with legal, regulatory, and contractual guidelines; funds, property, and other FEGLI Program assets will be safeguarded against waste, loss, unauthorized use, or misappropriation; and revenues and expenditures applicable to FEGLI Program operations will be properly recorded and accounted for to permit the preparation of timely and accurate financial reporting and to maintain accountability over assets.
[58 FR 40375, July 28, 1993. Redesignated and amended at 70 FR 41151, July 18, 2005]
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                                                        5

<S>                                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                     DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                                           0
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    4,104,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     117,000
<INVENTORY>                                                      10,378,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 20,671,000
<PP&E>                                                           41,139,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   11,458,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   66,453,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            8,576,000
<BONDS>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                         5,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                                       43,167,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     66,453,000
<SALES>                                                          86,945,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 86,945,000
<CGS>                                                            68,406,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    79,506,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 239,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               1,420,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  7,067,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     (7,312,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              14,379,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     14,379,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                    3.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    2.88



</TABLE>
225.7000 Scope of subpart. ( a ) This subpart contains restrictions on the acquisition of foreign products and services, imposed by DoD appropriations and authorization acts and other statutes. Refer to the acts to verify current applicability of the restrictions.
( b ) Nothing in this subpart affects the applicability of the Buy American statute or the Balance of Payments Program.
[56 FR 36367, July 31, 1991, as amended at 62 FR 2856, Jan. 17, 1997; 68 FR 15627, Mar. 31, 2003; 77 FR 35880, June 15, 2012]
#### 2814.404-1 Cancellation of invitations after opening.

The HCA or designee is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 14.404-1(c), (e)(1), and (f).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Noel ROBLES-ROBLES, also known as Victor Ortiz-Cabrera, also known as Francisco Lopez-Loya, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-10840

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 11, 2008.

Denise B. Williams, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David E. Sloan, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Noel Robles-Robles appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1826. He argues that the district court plainly erred by determining that his prior conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) was a “drug trafficking offense” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i). We disagree. A comparison of the statute and Guideline at issue shows that a conviction under § 841(a)(1) qualifies as a drug trafficking offense under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i). *See*§ 841(a)(1), § 2L1.2, comment. (n.l(B)(iv)). Robles-Robles’s argument to the contrary is unavailing.

In light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Robles-Robles challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. His argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), cert. *denied,*— U.S. ——, 128 S.Ct. 872, 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### 2825.103 Exceptions.

The authority to make the determination prescribed in FAR 25.103(a) is delegated to the HCA, or designee.
#### Sylvia Garfinkel, Respondent, v. Dolphin Realty, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order, entered on August 17, 1964, directing the individual defendant to attorn to the receiver and to pay him the sum of $100 per month for each of the three lofts occupied by her, and further directing individual defendant to allow an inspection of the premises or, in default thereof, directing the individual defendant to pay $440 for use and occupation of the premises, unanimously modified on the law and on the facts, and matter remanded to Special Term for a hearing on the reasonable value for use and occupancy of the premises occupied by said defendant, unless the receiver stipulates to accept in lieu thereof the sum of $70 per month for each of the three lofts occupied by defendant and waives any extra sum for failure to allow an inspection of the premises, in which event the order is affirmed, without costs to either party. No hearing was had on the application to fix rents. However, defendant admits that the occupant of a similar loft is currently paying $70 per month for his space. As no distinction in the space has been shown, this would be a prima facie showing of value sufficient to sustain an order. While defendant was disagreeable and failed to co-operate with the receiver, we find no justification to penalize her by increasing the charge for use and occupancy. Settle order on notice. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### Evyan Perfumes, Inc., et al., Appellants, v. A. E. Hamilton, Doing Business as A. E. Hamilton Company, Consultants, Respondent.

Order, entered on March 16, 1960, denying, among other things, plaintiffs’ motion to disqualify defendant’s former attorneys of record from representing defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs to any of the parties. Upon the record and upon the statements made in open court by defendant’s counsel, defendant and his attorneys are directed not to consult in any manner with defendant’s former counsel in connection with this pending lawsuit. Motion for a stay dismissed, having become academic by virtue of the decision of this court herein. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Noonan, JJ.
Exhibit 32

 

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officers of Cantel Medical Corp. (the “Company”), do hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission  (the “Form 10-Q”) that, to the best of their knowledge:

 

1. The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company, as of the date and for the period referred to in this report.

 

|                           |                                                 |
|--------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  March 9, 2017 |                                                 |
|                           |                                                 |
|                           |                                                 |
|                           | /s/ Jorgen B. Hansen                                 |
|                           | Jorgen B. Hansen                                     |
|                           | President and Chief Executive Officer                |
|                           | (Principal Executive Officer)                        |
|                           |                                                 |
|                           |                                                 |
|                           | /s/ Peter G. Clifford                                |
|                           | Peter G. Clifford                                    |
|                           | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                           | (Principal Financial Officer)                        |

 

----