alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Incorporated Village of Atlantic Beach, Appellant, v Armand A. Granito et al., Constituting the Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, Respondents.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, dated September 19, 1978, which granted to respondents Cohn and G. E. P. General Corporation a variance from the minimum lot area requirement for two-family houses, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 19, 1979, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements (see *Matter of Douglaston Civic Assn, v Galvin,*36 NY2d 1, 5-7; *Matter of Devore v Cazalet,*68 AD2d 17, 22). In our opinion, the determination of the respondent Board of Zoning Appeals is supported by substantial evidence (see *Matter of Cowan v Kern,*41 NY2d 591, 598). Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, O’Connor and Rabin, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 17 CFR 240.13a-14

PROMULGATED UNDER

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Bart McCain, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Penson Worldwide, Inc; and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: June 29, 2012



|                                                                                                
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Bart McCain                                                                                 
|Bart McCain                                                                                     
|Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and principal financial and accounting officer
#### § 215.17 Program information.

Persons seeking information about this Program should contact their State administering agency or the appropriate FNSRO. The FNS website has contact information for State agencies at *https://www.fns.usda.gov/contacts* and FNSROs at *https://www.fns.usda.gov/fns-regional-offices.*

[88 FR 57848, Aug. 23, 2023]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1951

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Some of the exhibits referenced in this part 1951 are not published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Exhibits are available in any Rural Development office.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1951 appear at 80 FR 9890-9894, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1951.216 Nonprogram (NP) loans.

Borrowers with NP loans are not eligible for any program benefits, including appeal rights. However, Rural Development may use any servicing tool under this subpart necessary to protect the Government's security interest, including reamortization or rescheduling. The refinancing requirements of subpart F of part 1951 of this chapter do not apply to NP loans. Debt settlement actions relating to NP loans must be handled under the Federal Claims Collection Act; proposals will be submitted to the National Office for review and approval. Any exception to the servicing requirements of NP loans under this subpart must have prior concurrence of the National Office.
# Memorandum us.Department of Transportation Office of fhe secretory of Transportation Subject:

From: Notice ofCommunication inDocket:

DOT-OST-OST -2010-0124 2010 SCASDP Proceeding
David S. Kim, FHWA~ate Administrator for Policy and Government Affairs (and farmer Deputy Assistant Secretary for Government Affairs) Date: 

# '1



# IrS-I!}

To: Chief, Dockets In accordance with Department rules (14 CFR Part 300), Iam reporting the following communication. On September 30, 2010, Senator Orrin Hatch ofUtah placed atelephone call to Secretary LaHood, during which the Senator expressed support forthe City ofPr~vo, Utah's application forfunds administered under the Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASDP). Senator Hatch briefly explained that obtaining SCASDP funds would enable Provo Airport to secure acommitment from Frontier Airlines toprovide service between Provo and Denver. Secretary LaHood listened, and explained that while he appreciated the Senator's interest in the Department's SCASDP proceeding, he could not comment on the merits because the matter was under active consideration bythe Department. The Secretary also explained that the Department would likely announce its grant selections by the end ofOctober. Please place this memorandum inthe appropriate Docket. .

cc: Senator Orrin Hatch
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PR ECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

The State, Respondent,

v.

Christopher Ryan Whitehead, Petitioner.

Appellate Case No. 2012-213683

ON WRI T OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal from Kershaw County G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Mem orandum Opinion No. 2015-MO-033 Heard December 11, 2014 – Filed June 10, 2015

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General D onald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney Genera l Melody J. Brown, andSolicitor Daniel E. Johnson, all of Columbia, for the Respondent.

JUSTICE KITTREDGE: We granted a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' unpublished opinion in State v. Whitehead , Op. No. 2012-UP-526 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Sept. 12, 2012). For the reasons set forth in State v. McDonald , 412 S.C. 133, 771 S.E.2d 840 (2015), we affirm as modifi ed. While the admission of

the codefendants' statements viol ated the Confrontation Clause, 1 in view of the overwhelming evidence of gu ilt, the error was harmless.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEAT TY and HEARN, JJ., concur.

1 U.S. Const. amend. VI; see Bruton v. United States

, 391 U.S. 123 (1968).
§ 205.604 Nonsynthetic substances prohibited for use in organic livestock production. The following nonsynthetic substances may not be used in organic livestock production: ( a ) Strychnine.
( b ) - ( z ) [Reserved]
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**829 KA 13-00057** 
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NATHANIEL WRIGHT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANET C. SOMES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (ROBERT J. SHOEMAKER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Francis A. Affronti, J.), rendered September 25, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [3]). As the People correctly concede, defendant’s “purported waiver of the right to appeal is not valid inasmuch as [Supreme] Court failed to obtain a knowing and voluntary waiver of that right at the time of the plea, and instead obtained the purported waiver at sentencing” ( People v Pieper , 104 AD3d 1225, 1225). We nonetheless reject defendant’s contention that the court erred in refusing to suppress his statements to the police. “[T]he record of the suppression hearing supports the court’s determination that the statements were not coerced, i.e., defendant received no promises in exchange for making the statements nor was he threatened in any way, and the court’s determination is entitled to great deference” ( People v Peay , 77 AD3d 1309, 1310, lv denied 15 NY3d 955; see People v Brown
, 111 AD3d 1385, 1386, lv denied 22 NY3d 1155; see generally People v Prochilo , 41 NY2d 759, 761). The conflicting testimony of defendant and the investigator who testified at the hearing “merely raised an issue of credibility that the court was entitled to resolve in favor of the People” ( People v Coleman , 306 AD2d 941, 941, lv denied 1 NY3d 596; see People v Cass , 43 AD3d 1272, 1273, lv denied 9 NY3d 1032).

Entered: June 19, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### HENIS et al. v. COMPANIA AGRICOLA DE GUATEMALA et al.

No. 11229.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued Feb. 16, 1954.

Decided March 2, 1954.

Arthur G. Logan, Wilmington, Del. (Stephen E. Hamilton, Jr., Wilmington, Del., Alexander Kahan, New York City, on the brief), for appellants.

William S. Potter, Wilmington, Del., and Porter R. Chandler, New York City, (James L. Latchum, Wilmington, Del., Davis Polk. Wardwell Sunderland, & Kiendl, Theodore Kiendl and Edwin J. Jacob, New York City, on the brief), for Compañía Agrícola de Guatemala, ap-pellee.

Edward M. Harris, Jr., New York City, for International Railways of Central America.

Before MARIS, KALODNER and STALEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from an order of the district court dismissing their complaint in a stockholders’ derivative action brought by them on behalf of defendant International Railways of Central America against defendant Compañía Agrícola de Guatemala. In their complaint plaintiffs allege that, they purchased their shares in International Railways in the latter part of 1951, whereas the transactions which they seek to have set aside and cancelled were entered into between Compañía Agrícola and International Railways in 1936 and shortly thereafter. The district court dismissed the complaint because, inter alia, the plaintiffs were unable to comply with the requirements of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b), 28 U.S.C.» that they should have been shareholders of International Railways at the time of the transactions of which they complain. The plaintiffs argue that the complaint alleges wrongs which continued after their acquisitions of shares and that Rule 23(b) is thereby satisfied. We do not agree. On the contrary we are in full accord with the views upon this subject expressed by Chief Judge Leahy of the district court in his opinion dismissing the complaint, 116 F.Supp. 223, 228-230, and we need add nothing thereto. Since the complaint was properly dismissed because it did not comply with Rule 23(b) we do not consider the applicability of the Delaware statute of limitations, the other ground upon which the district court based its action.

The order of the district court will be affirmed.
#### Frederick CEGUR, John W. Weaver, Johnny C. Collins, James M Schoonover, Timothy P. Macsay, Gary R. Greene, Robert L. Olson, Bernard J. Teusch, Kenneth W. Croner, Anton J. Bauer, III, Peter Androne, Charles E. Hall, Richard M. Barrett, Russell L. Sadler, Jr., Jack L. Wilson, and Jose M. Vazquez, Claimants-Appellees, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant.

Nos. 2006-7229, 2006-7233, 2006-7263 to 2006-7276.*

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Nov. 13, 2006.

Before GAJARSA, DYK, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The captions of these appeals are condensed only for the purposes of this order. The individual caption of each of these appeals has not been revised.

*ORDER*

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves without opposition to vacate the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ judgments in *Cegur v. Nicholson,*05-1224, 2006 WL 829237 (Vet.App.2006), *Weaver v. Nicholson,*04-2419, 2006 WL 1726512 (Vet.App.2006), *Collins v. Nicholson,*05-0309, 2007 WL 715486 (Vet.App.2007), *Schoonover v. Nicholson,*05-0526, 2007 WL 509732 (Vet.App.2007), *Macsay v. Nicholson,*05-0787, 2007 WL 509667 (Vet.App.2007), *Greene v. Nicholson,*05-0842, 2007 WL 602113 (Vet.App.2007), *Olson v. Nicholson,*05-0910, 2006 WL 1726445 (Vet.App.2006), *Teusch v. Nicholson,*05-1023, 2007 WL 602211 (Vet.App.2007), *Croner v. Nicholson,*05-1147, 2006 WL 1522079 (Vet.App.2006), *Bauer v. Nicholson,*05-1359, 2007 WL 509428 (Vet.App.2007), *Androne v. Nicholson,*05-1534, 2006 WL 1167659 (Vet.App.2006), *Hall v. Nicholson,*05-1693, 2006 WL 952611 (Vet.App.2006), *Barrett v. Nicholson,*05-1706, 2006 WL 1522013 (Vet.App.2006), *Sadler v. Nicholson,*05-1709, 2006 WL 954193 (Vet.App.2006), *Wilson v. Nicholson,*05-1804, 2006 WL 954029 (Vet.App.2006), and *Vazquez v. Nicholson,*05-1950, 2007 WL 602222 (Vet.App.2007), and remand these cases for further proceedings consistent with this court’s decision in *Smith v. Nicholson,*451 F.3d 1344 (Fed.Cir.2006).

In all of the above-captioned cases, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims relied on its decision in *Smith v. Nicholson,*19 Vet.App. 63 (2005), in concluding that the claimants were entitled to separate ratings for tinnitus in each ear. We reversed that decision, holding that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims should have deferred to the Secretary’s interpretation of the regulation at issue, an interpretation that only one rating may be allowed for tinnitus in both ears. *Smith,*451 F.3d 1344. Under these circumstances, the requested relief is appropriate.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motions to vacate and remand are granted.

*873(2) All parties shall bear their own costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank T. C., Appellant.

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County, imposed June 22, 1979, upon his adjudication as a youthful offender, the sentence being an indeterminate term of imprisonment with a maximum of four years. Sentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing it to a period of imprisonment of 60 days and probation for an additional 4 years and 10 months. As so modified, sentence affirmed and case remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, to fix the conditions of probation and for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). The sentence was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Rabin, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur; Mangano, J. P., dissents and votes to affirm the sentence.
120 STAT. 284 PUBLIC LAW 109–180—MAR. 14, 2006

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4515:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 151 (2005): Dec. 18, considered and passed House.

Vol. 152 (2006): Mar. 3, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–180

109th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4422 West

Sciota Street in Scio, New York, as the ‘‘Corporal Jason L. Dunham Post Office’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

4422 West Sciota Street in Scio, New York, shall be known and

designated as the ‘‘Corporal Jason L. Dunham Post Office’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Corporal

Jason L. Dunham Post Office’’.

Approved March 14, 2006.

Mar. 14, 2006

[H.R. 4515]
#### § 1221.4 Certified organization.

*Certified organization* means any organization that has been certified by the Secretary pursuant to this part as eligible to submit nominations for membership on the Board.
Editorial Note on Part 1948
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1948 appear at 80 FR 9888, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1948.78 Growth management and housing planning projects. ( a ) Existing plans for growth management and housing may be used to meet the planning requirements of this subpart.
( b ) A reasonable effort should be made to modify existing plans for use in meeting the planning requirements of this section.
( c ) The Governor shall be responsible for the coordination of planning within a State.
( d ) The planning process developed with assistance under this section should begin at the local level and flow upward to the State.
( e ) Planning processes developed with assistance under this section should have the maximum possible citizen involvement in the development of plans.
( f ) Governors should give full consideration to local and substate priorities in the development of the State Investment Strategy for Energy Impacted Areas.
( g ) Plans developed with assistance under this section should be fully coordinated with other Federal, State, substate, and local planning activities affected by the project.
( h ) Planning conducted by the State include effective management activities for coordinated development of approved designated areas through the plan implementation stage.
[44 FR 35984, June 19, 1979, as amended at 48 FR 29121, June 24, 1983]
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 205 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 205

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the treatment of 
    certain retirement plan contributions picked up by governmental 
                               employers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2013

Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California introduced the following bill; which 
            was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the treatment of 
    certain retirement plan contributions picked up by governmental 
                               employers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF TREATMENT OF CERTAIN RETIREMENT PLAN 
              CONTRIBUTIONS PICKED UP BY GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYERS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 414(h) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``For purposes of paragraph (1)'' and 
        inserting the following:
                    ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)'', 
                and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(B) Treatment of elections between alternative 
                benefit formulas.--
                            ``(i) In general.--For purposes of 
                        subparagraph (A), a contribution shall not fail 
                        to be treated as picked up by an employing unit 
                        merely because the employee may make an 
                        irrevocable election between the application of 
                        two alternative benefit formulas involving the 
                        same or different levels of employee 
                        contributions.
                            ``(ii) Application to existing employees.--
                        Clause (i) shall be applied without regard to 
                        whether the employee is already covered by one 
                        of the benefit formulas referred to therein.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to years ending after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: SE03522

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 153 (Friday, August 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 46500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18800]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 8813]

In the Matter of the Amendment of the Designation of Harakat ul-
Mujahidin, aka Harakat ul-Mujahideen, aka Harakat ul-Ansar, aka Jamiat 
ul-Ansar, aka HUA, aka HUM, aka al-Hadid, aka al-Hadith, aka al-Faran 
as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entity Pursuant to Executive 
Order 13224

    Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this 
matter pursuant to Executive Order 13224 and in consultation with the 
Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of 
State concludes that there is a sufficient factual basis to find that 
Harakat ul-Mujahidin, also known under the aliases listed above, uses 
or has used additional aliases, namely, Ansar ul-Ummah.
    Therefore, the Secretary of State hereby amends the designation of 
Harakat ul-Mujahidin as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist entity, 
pursuant to Executive Order 13224, to include the following new aliases 
and other possible transliterations thereof:

Ansar ul-Ummah.

    Dated: July 23, 2014.
 John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-18800 Filed 8-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 1980

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1980 appear at 80 FR 9905, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1980.432 Environmental review requirements.

[See subpart A, § 1980.40 and 7 CFR part 1970.] *Administrative*

Loans made under this part must be in compliance with the environmental review requirements in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970.

[81 FR 11047, Mar. 3, 2016]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1944.518 Term of grant.

TSA projects will be funded under one Grant Agreement for two years commencing on the date of execution of the Agreement by the State Director.
Editorial Note on Part 1980
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1980 appear at 80 FR 9905, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1980.420 Loan guarantee limits. The percentage of guarantee, up to the maximum allowed by this section, is a matter of negotiation between the lender and Rural Development. ( a ) For loans of $2 million or less, the maximum percentage of guarantee is 90 percent.
( b ) For loans over $2 million but not over $5 million, the maximum percentage of guarantee is 80 percent.
( c ) For loans in excess of $5 million, the maximum percentage of guarantee is 70 percent.
( d ) Lenders and borrowers will propose the percentage of guarantee. Rural Development informs lenders and borrowers in writing on Form RD 449-14 of any percentage of guarantee less than proposed by the lender and borrower, and the reasons therefore. Rural Development determines the percentage of guarantee after considering all credit factors involved, including but not limited to: ( 1 ) *Borrower's management.* The borrower's management, and when appropriate, equity capital, history of operation, marketing plan, raw material requirements, and availability of necessary supporting utilities and services;
( 2 ) *Collateral.* Collateral for the loan;
( 3 ) *Financial condition.* Financial condition of borrower or borrower's principals, if appropriate;
( 4 ) *Lender's exposure.* The lender's exposure before and after the loan, and any applicable limits on the lender's lending authority; and
( 5 ) *Trends and conditions.* Current trends and economic conditions.