alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*

§ 1464.4 Funding pool allocations. ( a ) Of the funds made available for the program, NRCS will allocate: ( 1 ) Fifty percent of the funds to projects based on a State or multistate competitive process; and
( 2 ) Fifty percent of the funds to projects for the CCAs designated by the Secretary.
( b ) NRCS will allocate funds under the funding pools identified under paragraph (a) of this section to projects selected on a competitive basis pursuant to partnership agreement proposals submitted under the requirements of subpart B of this part.
§ 1776.2 Uniform Federal Assistance Provisions. ( a ) This program is subject to the general provisions that apply to all grants made by USDA and that are set forth in 2 CFR part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 400, as well as the following: ( 1 ) 2 CFR part 415—General Program Administrative Requirements.
( 2 ) 2 CFR part 180, as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 417, Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension, implementing Executive Order 12549 on debarment and suspension.
( 3 ) 2 CFR part 418, New Restrictions on Lobbying, prohibiting the use of appropriated funds to influence Congress or a Federal agency in connection with the making of any Federal grant and other Federal contracting and financial transactions.
( 4 ) 2 CFR part 421, Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance), implementing the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C 8102).
( b ) [Reserved]
[81 FR 7697, Feb. 16, 2016]
#### Irving Elias et al. v Prudential Investment Corporation, S. A., et al.

— Motion insofar as it seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted, and the following question certified: "Was the order of the Supreme Court, as affirmed by this court, properly made?” Motion, insofar as it seeks reargument, denied. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Sullivan, Lane and Ross, JJ.
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 Candela Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending June 29, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gerard E. Puorro, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

/s/
Gerard E. Puorro

---

Gerard E. Puorro
Chief Executive Officer
September 26, 2003

---

QuickLinks
#### § 1786.154 Qualified Notes.

An eligible borrower may prepay Qualified Notes under this subpart at the discounted present value. A Qualified Note is a note evidencing an RUS electric loan, all advances of which were made prior to May 1, 1992, or not less than 2 years prior to the date of prepayment closing. See §§ 1786.155(a)(3) and 1786.158 (h) and (j).
Exhibit 5.1

MALONEY, MEHLMAN & KATZ
405 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10174

May 29, 1997

Pharmhouse Corp.
860 Broadway
New York, New York 10003

RE: Pharmhouse Corp.
    Registration Statement on Form S-3

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     We have acted as counsel to Pharmhouse Corp., a New York
corporation (the "Company"), in connection with the preparation
and filing of a registration statement on Form S-3 (the
"Registration Statement") filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the purpose of registering for sale under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, of (1) Class A, B and C
warrants (collectively, the "Warrants") to purchase up to an
aggregate of 209,195 Common Shares, $.01 par value, of Pharmhouse
Corp. (the "Common Shares") held by Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc.
("Rosenthal") and (ii) 209,195 Common Shares issuable upon
exercise of such Warrants.

     Based upon our review of relevant corporate documents of the
Company and of the Warrant Agreement between the Company and
Rosenthal, dated December 24, 1991 as amended July 17, 1996 (the
"Warrant Agreement"), we are of the opinion that (a) subject to
payment of the exercise prices thereunder and compliance with the
other terms of the Warrant Agreement by the holder thereof, the
Warrants (described in the prospectus constituting a part of the
Registration Statement (the "Prospectus")) represent legally
binding obligations of the Company, enforceable against the
Company in accordance with the terms of the Warrant Agreement,
except as enforceability thereof may be limited by laws of
bankruptcy, insolvency and similar laws affecting creditors'
rights generally and by general equitable principals, and (b)
all of the Common Shares to be issued upon exercise of the
Warrants and sold by Rosenthal will, when issued in accordance
with the Warrant Agreement, have been duly authorized, validly
issued, fully paid and nonassessable.

     We hereby consent to the reference to our firm under the
caption "Legal Matters" in the Prospectus.  We further consent to
your filing a copy of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Maloney, Mehlman & Katz
Maloney, Mehlman & Katz
**Exhibit 11.1**

 

**ML Macadamia Orchards, L.P.**

**Computation of Net Income (Loss) per Class A Unit**

(in thousands, except per unit data)

 
| ** **                                                | ** ** | **2010**   | ** ** | **2009**   | ** ** | **2008**   | ** ** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|
| ** **                                                | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** |
| Net income (loss)                                         |       | $          | (1,487     | )          | $          | 195        |       | $ | 68 |   |
|                                                      |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Class A Unitholders (ownership percentage)           |       | x          | 100        | %          | x          | 100        | %          | x | 100 | % |
|                                                      |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Net income (loss) allocable to Class A   Unitholders |       | $          | (1,487     | )          | $          | 195        |       | $ | 68 |   |
|                                                      |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Class A Units outstanding                            |       | 7,500      |       | 7,500      |       | 7,500      |       |
|                                                      |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Net income (loss) per Class A Unit                   |       | $          | (0.20      | )          | $          | 0.03       |       | $ | 0.01 |   |

 

----
#### In re Ryan D. LISTER.

No. 07-8005.

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Aug. 21, 2007.

Before KASOLD, HAGEL, and MOORMAN, Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended attorney Ryan D. Lister (respondent) from the practice of law for five months, effective, June 15, 2007. Pursuant to Rule 4(c)(1)(A) of the Court’s Rules of Admission and Practice, the respondent informed the Court of his suspension on June 18, 2007.

On June 20, 2007, the respondent was temporarily suspended from practice before the Court pending the conclusion of the proceedings under the Rules. *See*U.S. VetApp. R. Adm. & Prao. 7(d)(1)(B). On the same date, the matter was referred to this panel.

On June 28, 2007, the respondent was ordered within 30 days to show cause why he should not be suspended from practice before this Court until such time as he may be readmitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin and successfully petitions this Court for readmission. The respondent has not filed a response to the show cause order contesting the proposed discipline, and the time for any such response has expired.

Therefore, pursuant to the authority of Rule 7(d)(3)(B) of the Rules of Admission and Practice,

It is ORDERED that the respondent, Ryan D. Lister, is hereby suspended from the practice of law before this Court until such time as he may be readmitted to the practice of law in the State of Wisconsin and successfully petitions this Court for readmission.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 USC, SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

          In connection with the amended quarterly report of Northern Ethanol, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A1 for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Rule 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Dated: September 22, 2008 | s/Richard Smith___________________ |
|---------------------------|------------------------------------|

|   | Richard Smith, Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
###### Editorial Note on Part 1924

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1924 appear at 80 FR 9870, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1924.116-1924.118 [Reserved]
#### D’AMBROSIO et al. v. PINCOCK et al.

No. 11720.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Dec. 4, 1953.

Decided Dec. 17, 1953.

Mr. J. Roy Thompson, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Bernard J. Gallagher, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.

*24Mr. John F. Cooney, Washington, D. C., for appellees.

Before PRETTYMAN, BAZELON and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This was a civil action in the District Court for damages alleged to have been caused by the negligent construction and .maintenance of a sidewalk leading to a private office. The trial court concluded that plaintiffs had failed to establish negligence and directed a verdict for the defendants. Upon review we agree with the trial court, and its judgment is

Affirmed.
Third Department,

May, 1980

(May 1, 1980)

#### In the Matter of Raya Mohabat Abadir, Respondent, v Lofty Abadir, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chemung County, entered February 27, 1979, granting the petitioner modification of child support. The respondent, a school teacher, has a gross salary of $23,556 per year, amounting to $458 gross per week and $289.09 net per week. The petitioner is also a school teacher, earning $1,010 per month gross, $931.66 net per month or $216.66 net per week, and she had the care and custody of the couple’s three children, born July 31,1961, June 16, 1967 and January 4, 1969. Out of his salary, the respondent was ordered by the Family Court to pay $150 per week child support at the rate of $50 per week per child and $810 in arrearage. As to the arrearage, the court left the option open for the respondent to pay it any time, but if it remained unpaid when the eldest child became emancipated then payment was to continue in the same amount for the child until the arrearage was liquidated. The court allowed petitioner attorney’s fees at $750, $250 of which was to be paid by *906her and $500 by the respondent. On March 29, 1979, the original order was modified and the support reduced to $100 per week, effective March 21, 1979, because the eldest daughter had married. The decision of the trial court was not contrary to the weight of the evidence, considering the financial circumstances of both parents and the needs of the children. Section 250 of the Domestic Relations Law had been complied with by both parties. In considering the needs, debts and obligations of both parents, the court suggested the elimination or reduction of certain obligations. In the circumstances, child support of $100 per week for a father with a gross salary of $23,556 per year was eminently fair and reasonable *(Dzus v Dzus,*66 AD2d 795). The attorney’s fees were fairly divided between the parties, and the arrears imposed no immediate financial burden on the respondent. Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Mikoll and Casey, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.10
 LEASE
 st
 W I T N E S S E T H   RECITALS
     SECTION ONE
  SECTION TWO
 st st
  SECTION THREE
 st st st




---



##### 



SECTION FOUR




---



##### 



SECTION FIVE




---



##### 



SECTION SIX
  SECTION SEVEN




---



##### 



SECTION EIGHT
  SECTION NINE
  SECTION TEN




---



##### 



SECTION ELEVEN




---



##### 



SECTION TWELVE
  SECTION THIRTEEN




---



##### 



SECTION FOURTEEN
  SECTION FIFTEEN
  SECTION SIXTEEN
  SECTION SEVENTEEN
  SECTION EIGHTEEN




---



##### 



SECTION NINETEEN
  SECTION TWENTY
  SECTION TWENTY-ONE
  SECTION TWENTY-TWO
   SECTION TWENTY-THREE




---



##### 



SECTION TWENTY-FOUR




---



##### 



SECTION TWENTY-FIVE
  SECTION TWENTY-SIX




---



##### 



SECTION TWENTY-SEVEN




---



##### 



SECTION TWENTY-EIGHT




---



##### 



SECTION TWENTY-NINE
  SECTION THIRTY
     LESSOR
    
    LESSEEDJR VENTURES, LLC
    

COPPERFIELD, LLCBy: James D. Pomeroy
    
    By: Richard N. Burger




---



##### 



st th
 , Notary PublicMy Commission Expires:
    
    
    
    Residing in County, IN
 
 st th
 , Notary PublicMy Commission Expires:
    
    
    
    Residing in County, IL
 THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY:
    
    David R. HolmesHOLMES & WALTER, LLP116 West Plymouth StreetBremen, Indiana 46506Telephone: (574) 546-4022
2006-0604.

#### State v. Shelton.

Hamilton App. No. C-040658, 2006-Ohio-182. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion granted.

Resnicic, O’Connor and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.
§ 18.8 Noncompliance. A university conducting a Cooperative Extension Service will be in violation of this part: ( a ) If the President fails to file a program in which the Secretary concurs under § 18.3, or fails to file an appropriate amendment in accordance with § 18.3(d);
( b ) If after concurrence in the President's program the Secretary finds that a university has failed to administer such program according to its terms;
( c ) If the Secretary finds that any officer of the university has intimidated, coerced, or improperly pressured a complainant, employee, representative, or witness exercising the rights given him by this part or any program adopted pursuant thereto, and that corrective action has not been taken.
[33 FR 12173, Aug. 29, 1968, as amended at 38 FR 14154, May 30, 1973]
#### § 1780.88 [Reserved]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Consumer Product Safety Commission

# Time and Date:

 Wednesday, November 17, 2010, 9 a.m.-12 Noon.

# Place:

 Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.

# Status:

 Commission Meeting—Open to the Public.

# Matter to be Considered:

*Decisional Matter:*                         Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database—Final Rule.                    

                        A live Webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at                         *http://www.cpsc.gov/​webcast.*                         For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.                    

# Contact Person for More Information:

 Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

Dated: November 9, 2010.

Todd A. Stevenson,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-28789 Filed 11-10-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
**Exhibit 32****CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**The undersigned officers of **Standard Aero Holdings, Inc.**hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: 1. the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Standard AeroHoldings, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of United Components, Inc.     Date: August 24, 2005           By: /s/ David Shaw      Name: David Shaw  Title: Chief Executive Officer     Date: August 24, 2005           By: /s/ Bradley Bertouille      Name: Bradley Bertouille  Title: Chief Financial OfficerThe foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether madebefore or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.
#### §§ 1767.42-1767.45 [Reserved]
MEMORANDUM

TO: Record

FROM: James K. O’Connell, ERG

DATE: March 26, 2015

SUBJECT: Underground Injection Control Program Webinar Notes (DCN SGE01052)

On January 22, 2015, ERG attended the Penn State Cooperative Extension Shale Webinar 

Series presentation on EPA Region 3’s Underground Injection Control Program. The 

presentation was delivered by Karen Johnson, Chief Ground Water & Enforcement Branch for

EPA Region 3.

 UIC Program is authorized under SDWA

o Protects underground sources of drinking water (USDW)

o Regulates subsurface emplacement of fluids

 6 types of injection wells

o Class II – Oil and Gas (including enhanced recovery and brine disposal)

 Class IIR (enhanced recovery): 1,500+ wells in PA

 Class IID (brine disposal): 11 wells in PA

 Time period not specified; implied to be a current count

 USDW – Very inclusive definition

o Less than 10,000 mg/L TDS

o Aquifer or portion that provides for public water system or could provide

o Not an exempted aquifer

o Prohibits injection of fluids or movement of fluids that may pose “potential 

endangerment.”

 UIC Program does not include hydraulic fracturing (unless diesel is used).

o EPA released guidance on definition of “diesel” in Feb 2014

 UIC Permit Requirements

o Defined area of review/zone of endangering influence

o Injection well construction (depth of surface casing critical (at least 50 ft))

o Well operation (maximum injection pressure and injection rates)

o Mechanical integrity testing

o Plugging and abandonment

 Financial responsibility

 Wells within the area of review need to be properly plugged to prevent injection fluids 

from moving into USDW

 Annulus pressure tests are used to test mechanical integrity

 PA doesn’t allow injection wells to be refractured
 Brine disposal is viable in PA

 Disposal Horizons

o Wells typically converted from unproductive or depleted gas wells

 Major issues in PA

o Water management

 Drilling and well development

 Ruse

 Disposal

o Research

 Other saline reservoirs

 Reservoir capacity

 Three cases of unpermitted brine disposal in PA

o These facilities were found disposing or attempting to dispose of waste illegally

 Swamp Angel – Operators found guilty under criminal charges

 Titusville Oil – Administrative Penalty for $10,000

 Tunnelton Liquids – Facility closed

 Expecting to see increase in Class IID wells.

o Presenter did not provide specific/concrete reasons for this expectation 

 PA has fewer injection wells than other states because there were less costly options for 

disposal

 UIC permit expires in either 5 or 10 years (depending on the type of disposal)

o EPA reevaluates permit requirements based on

 Volume

 Pressure

 Area of review

 History of the operation
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Credit Union Administration

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Mary Rupp,

Board Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-28795 Filed 11-10-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE P