alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1721.108 Commencement of the deferment.

The deferment of principal and interest will not begin until the extension agreement and other supporting materials, in form and substance satisfactory to RUS, have been executed by the Borrower and returned to RUS. Examples of other supporting materials are items such as approving legal opinions from the Borrower's attorney and approvals from the relevant regulatory body for extending the maturity of existing debt and for the additional debt service payment incurred.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1942

#### Editorial Notes:

Nomenclature changes to part 1942 appear at 80 FR 9878, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1942.15 Delegation and redelegation of authority.

The State Director is responsible for implementing the authorities in this subpart and for issuing State supplements redelegating authorities. Loan and grant approval authority is in Subpart A of Part 1901 of this chapter. Except for loan and grant approval authority, Rural Development Manager may redelegate their duties to qualified staff members.

[70 FR 19254, Apr. 13, 2005]
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




The Board of Directors
Research Frontiers Incorporated

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No. 33-53030, 33-86910, 333-08623 and 333-34163) on Form S-8 and
(No. 333-40369 and 333-65219 ) on Form S-3 of Research Frontiers
Incorporated of our report dated February 19, 1999, except as to note 11,
which is as of March 25, 1999 relating to the 
balance sheets of Research Frontiers Incorporated as of
December 31, 1998 and 1997 and the related statements of operations, 
shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year 
period ended December 31, 1998, which report appears in the December 31, 1998
annual report on Form 10-K of Research Frontiers Incorporated.


                            /s/ KPMG LLP
                   KPMG LLP

Jericho, New York
March 29, 1999
§ 1590.11 Claims for damage to or loss of procured commodities. ( a ) The recipient will be responsible for claims arising out of damage to or loss of a quantity of the procured commodities after the transfer of title to the procured commodities from the commodity vendor(s) to the recipient.
( b ) If the recipient has title to procured commodities that have been damaged or lost, and the value of the damaged or lost procured commodities is estimated to be in excess of $20,000, the recipient must: ( 1 ) Notify FAS immediately and provide detailed information about the circumstances surrounding such damage or loss, the quantity of damaged or lost procured commodities, and the value of the damage or loss;
( 2 ) Promptly upon discovery of the damage or loss, initiate a claim arising out of such damage or loss, including, if appropriate, initiating an action to collect pursuant to a commercial insurance contract;
( 3 ) Take all necessary action to pursue the claim diligently and within any applicable periods of limitations; and
( 4 ) Provide to FAS copies of all documentation relating to the claim.
( c ) If the recipient has title to procured commodities that have been damaged or lost, and the value of the damaged or lost procured commodities is estimated to be $20,000 or less, the recipient must notify FAS in accordance with the agreement and provide detailed information about the damage or loss in the next report required to be filed under § 1590.14(e).
( d ) ( 1 ) The value of a claim for lost procured commodities will be determined on the basis of the commodity acquisition, transportation, and related costs incurred by the recipient and paid by FAS with respect to such commodities.
( 2 ) The value of a claim for damaged procured commodities will be determined on the basis of the commodity acquisition, transportation, and related costs incurred by the recipient and paid by FAS with respect to such commodities, less any funds generated if such commodities are sold in accordance with § 1590.10(f)(1).
( e ) If FAS determines that a recipient has not initiated a claim or is not exercising due diligence in the pursuit of a claim, FAS may require the recipient to assign its rights to pursue the claim to FAS. Failure by the recipient to initiate a claim or exercise due diligence in the pursuit of a claim will be considered by FAS during the review of proposals for subsequent food assistance awards.
( f ) ( 1 ) The recipient may retain any funds obtained as a result of a claims collection action initiated by it in accordance with this section, or recovered pursuant to any insurance policy or other similar form of indemnification, but such funds must be expended as provided for in the agreement or for other purposes approved in advance by FAS.
( 2 ) FAS will retain any funds obtained as a result of a claims collection action initiated by it under this section; provided, however, that if the recipient paid for the transportation of the procured commodities or a portion thereof, FAS will use a portion of such funds to reimburse the recipient for such expense on a prorated basis.
Appeal No. 79-185.

#### Anna A. Perry *v.*Linwood G. Howard, Jr.

*Quinn, Cuzzpne ir Geremia, John F. Cuzzone, Jr.,*for plaintiff. *Gunning, LaFazia é- Gnys, Inc., Netti C. Vogel,*for defendant.

The defendant’s motion to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court pursuant to Rule 16(g) is granted.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PER

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Ciro M. DeFalco, certify that:

| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 of  The Navigators Group, Inc.; 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. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date: April 30, 2019 | By:    | /s/ Ciro M. DeFalco                                  |
|----------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                 | Name:  | Ciro M. DeFalco                                      |
|                 | Title: | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                 |   | (Principal Financial Officer)                        |
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2007
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company.
 Dated: April 1, 2008
    /s/ Peter GiacalonePeter GiacaloneChief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer)Dated:  April 1, 2008
    /s/ Steven WestbergSteven WestbergChief Financial Officer (Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2011 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2013 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a 

two-year extension of the Veterans’ Advisory Committee 

on Education. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2011 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans’ Advisory 

3 Committee on Education Improvement Act of 2013’’. 

4 SEC. 2. TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF VETERANS’ ADVISORY 

5 COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION. 

6 Section 3692 of title 38, United States Code, is 

7 amended— 

8 (1) in subsection (a)— 

9 (A) by inserting ‘‘31,’’ after ‘‘30,’’; and 

10 (B) by striking ‘‘and the Persian Gulf 

11 War’’ and inserting ‘‘the Persian Gulf War, and 

12 the post-9/11 operations in Iraq and Afghani13 stan’’; and 

14 (2) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘December 31, 

15 2013’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2015’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 28, 

2013. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Donald J. Daigle, Respondent, v Helen L. Daigle, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered September 6, 1978 in Saratoga County, as decreed that the plaintiff has no responsibility to pay rent to her for his exclusive occupation of the marital premises. This appeal is prosecuted upon an agreed statement of facts. The plaintiff and the defendant separated on July 31, 1974, at which time the defendant moved from their jointly owned marital premises. Subsequently, a jury found that defendant had committed adultery and, further, that the plaintiff had treated her in a cruel and inhuman manner. The court granted a divorce to the parties and only so much of its judgment as decreed that the plaintiff need not pay any rent for his exclusive occupation of the premises after the defendant left is placed in issue by the defendant’s notice of appeal. The specification of the issue presented pursuant to CPLR 5527 as including the award to plaintiff of one half of the expenses paid by the plaintiff in maintaining the marital premises after the defendant moved out exceeds the notice of appeal and will not be considered. The defendant and plaintiff are in agreement that rent may not be assessed against the spouse remaining in exclusive possession unless there has been an ouster of the other spouse (cf. *Miraldi v Miraldi,*51 AD2d 538, mot for lv to app den *sub nom. Schwartz v Miraldi,*39 NY2d 921). The defendant insists that since the jury found that the plaintiff had been guilty of cruel and inhuman conduct toward her, she was "ousted” as a matter of law because such treatment rendered it unsafe for her to cohabit with plaintiff. However, the defendant’s complaint specified that the conduct of plaintiff consisted of the following: "he constantly provoked violent arguments. * * * constantly criticizing the defendant and constantly refusing * * * to give the defendant sufficient money to meet the needs of the defendant and the children * * * converted all of the joint *772funds on deposit in the bank to his own use and put them in accounts in his own name.” The defendant has not provided any transcript of the proceedings and it appears that the above facts constitute the cruel and inhuman treatment. Such facts do not compel a conclusion that the defendant had to abandon the marital premises, and while it might have been unsafe to continue the relationship of husband and wife (cohabit), that does not necessarily mean that it is unsafe to occupy the same premises. Upon the present statement of facts and record, the defendant has not established that Special Term erred in denying her claim for the payment of rent to her by the plaintiff. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Ruths Hospitality Group, Inc.
(the Company) for the quarter ended September 27, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 5, 2009



By

/S/ MICHAEL P.
ODONNELLMichael P. ODonnellPresident and Chief Executive Officer ofRuths Hospitality Group, Inc.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Mary F. Rollin, Deceased . Lucien P. Rollin, Appellant; Kings County Trust Company et al., Respondents.

Decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, dated December 20, 1965, affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to each respondent or group of respondents filing a separate brief, payable out of the estate. The principal claim advanced by appellant is that a waiver of right of election under section 18 of the Decedent Estate Law, concededly executed by him, is invalid because it was induced by constructive fraud. That contention was rejected by the trier of the facts and in our opinion the record amply sustains that determination (cf. *Amend*v. *Hurley,*293 N. Y. 587, 594). Appellant’s other contentions have been examined and we find no grounds therein for disturbing the decree below. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.
#### Caroline B. Kennard, as Administratrix of the Estate of Leonard E. Coker, Deceased, Respondent-Appellant, v. Welded Tank & Construction Co., Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Colorado Fuel & Iron Co., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. (Action No. 1.) (And Three Other Actions.)

—Judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated July 21, 1961, affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to respondent Colorado Fuel & Iron Co. against appellants Karran, Welded Tank & Construction Co., Inc., and C. W. Lauman *&*Co. jointly. No opinion. Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur; Benjamin, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to grant a new trial, with the following memorandum, in which Christ, Acting P. J., concurs: On or about August 20, 1952 defendant Colorado delivered certain tank heads to defendant Welded. The latter thereafter used two of the tank heads in the manufacture of two steel tanks, which it delivered in December, 1953 to plaintiff C. W. Lauman & Co. On February 24, 1954, while Lauman was installing the tanks as part of a water storage and distribution system for the owner of a real estate development, one of the tanks exploded, injuring one Karran and killing one Coker (both employees of Lauman). After trial in 1960, the jury found general verdicts (a) against Welded in the Coker wrongful death action and (b) against Welded and Colorado in the Karran actions for personal injuries and in the Lauman action for property damage. However, the jury also made special findings that, although *579Welded was guilty of negligence, Colorado was not. The trial court thereupon directed entry of judgment dismissing the complaints against Colorado in the Karran and Lauman actions and also dismissing Welded’s third-party complaints and cross claim on the grounds that (1) section 459 of the former Civil Practice Act provided that, where a special finding is inconsistent with a general verdict, the former controls the latter, and the court must render judgment accordingly; (2) the special findings were inconsistent with the general verdict; (3) the statute was mandatory and the court was without power to resubmit the matter to the jury or to order a new trial; and (4) the evidence supports the special findings. In my opinion, section 459 of the former Civil Practice Act should be given the same interpretation which present CPLR 4111 (subd. [e]) makes explicit, namely, that where a special verdict is inconsistent with the general verdict the court shall direct the entry of judgment in accordance with the special verdict, or require the jury to further consider the special verdict, or order a new trial. In the present ease the appendix is insufficient to enable this court to determine whether the evidence supported only the special findings. Since the now-disbanded jury may not be requested to further consider the special findings, the only alternative is to order a new trial.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 218 (Friday, November 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 69462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28512]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated August 2, 2010, and published in the Federal 
Register on September 1, 2010 (75 FR 53718), Cambrex Charles City, 
Inc., 1205 11th Street, Charles City, Iowa 50616, made application by 
renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered 
as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in 
schedule II:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opium, raw (9600)..........................   II
Poppy Straw Concentrate (9670).............   II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to import the basic classes of controlled 
substances to manufacture a bulk intermediate which will be distributed 
in bulk to the company's customers.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a), and determined that the 
registration of Cambrex Charles City, Inc. to import the basic classes 
of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest, and 
with United States obligations under international treaties, 
conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. DEA has 
investigated Cambrex Charles City, Inc. to ensure that the company's 
registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation 
has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security 
systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local 
laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, 
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 
1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer 
of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.

    Dated: November 1, 2010.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-28512 Filed 11-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
AFFiRM Opinion Filed; September 17, 2012.

in The

tøiirt øf Appath

ift1 Oistrirt uf ixai at Eia1ta

No. 05-11-00631-CR

EDUARDO ARTEAGA, Appellant

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 004-83120-09

MEMORANDUM OPENION

Before Justices Moseley, Fillmore, and Myers

Opinion By Justice Fillmore

Eduardo Arteaga was convicted of driving while intoxicated, Punishment was assessed at

sixty days’ confinement in jail, probated for eighteen months, and a $500 fine. Appellant, who is

not indigent and who is representing himself did not file a brief. 1 Absent briefs, no issues are before

us. Finding no fundamental error, we affirm the trial

ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. App. P.47

11063 IF.U05

I On August 14. 2012, we ordered appellant to file his brief within fifteen days. We warned that failure to do SC) would result in the appeal being

submitted sithout hrief See ft x R At P P 38 S(b) I ott State 874 5 W 2d 687 (Tex Cnm App 1994)
Qtmtrt nf pi.ua1s

3iftI! Htrict øf cxzis at 1a11as

JUDGMENT

E1)UAR1)O ARTEAGA, Appellant Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

of Collin County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 004-

No. 05-11-00631 -CR V. 83 120-09).

Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore,

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Moseley and Myers participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment,

Judgment entered September 17, 2012.

ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 197 

To amend the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 

Act of 1996 to repeal the denial of food stamp eligibility of ex-offenders. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2013 

Ms. LEE of California introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act of 1996 to repeal the denial of food 

stamp eligibility of ex-offenders. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Food Assistance to 

5 Improve Reintegration Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DENIAL OF BENEFITS. 

7 Section 115 of the Personal Responsibility and Work 

8 Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (21 U.S.C. 862a) 

9 is amended— 

10 (1) in subsection (a) by striking paragraph (2); 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 197 IH

1 (2) in subsection (b) by striking paragraph (2); 

2 and 

3 (3) in subsection (e) by striking paragraph (2). 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with
###### 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.

#### § 1951.882 [Reserved]
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-127119on Form S-8 of our report dated March 13, 2006, relating to thecombined statements of operations and cash flows and financial statementschedule related to the net assets acquired from Promenade Trust (the PresleyBusiness) for the year ended December 31, 2004 and for the period January 1,2005 to February 7, 2005, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-Kof CKX, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2006.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Memphis, Tennessee

March 1, 2007

----
98-1179.

#### DuBose v. Akron Pub. Schools.

Summit App. No. 18707.

F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., dissent.
§ 1753.78 Construction by contract. ( a ) RUS Form 773 shall be used for minor construction by contract. Compensation may be based upon unit prices, hourly rates, or another basis agreed to in advance by the borrower and the contractor. A single work project may require more than one contractor.
( b ) The borrower shall prepare the contract form and attach any diagrams, sketches and tabulations necessary to specify clearly the work to be performed and who shall provide which materials. Neither the selection of the contractor nor the contract requires RUS approval.
( c ) Borrowers are urged to obtain quotations from several contractors before entering into a contract to be assured of obtaining the lowest cost. The borrower must ensure that the contractor selected meets all Federal and State licensing and bonding requirements, and that the contractor maintains the insurance coverage required by the contract for the duration of the work. (See 7 part CFR 1788)
( d ) Upon completion and final inspection of the construction the borrower shall obtain from the Contractor a final invoice and an executed copy of RUS Form 743, Certificate of Contractor and Indemnity Agreement.
( e ) RUS Contract Form 773 may also be used to contract for the maintenance and repair of telephone equipment and facilities. Generally, RUS will not finance maintenance and repair contracts.
[55 FR 3573, Feb. 2, 1990. Redesignated at 55 FR 39397, Sept. 27, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 43718, Aug. 25, 1994]
#### §§ 1709.125-1709.200 [Reserved]