alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 319.75-8 Ports of entry.

Any regulated article shall be imported only at a Customs designated port of entry indicated in 19 CFR 101.3(b)(1) and found by the Administrator and specified on the permit issued pursuant to § 319.75-3 to have a nongovernmental fumigator available at the port to treat such regulated article pursuant to § 319.75-4. It is the responsibility of the importer to arrange with the nongovernmental fumigator for treatment of the article.

[46 FR 38334, July 27, 1981, as amended at 72 FR 43523, Aug. 6, 2007; 78 FR 25572, May 2, 2013;79 FR 19811, Apr. 10, 2014; 83 FR 11866, Mar. 19, 2018]
§ 2901.5 Modifications and rescissions. ( a ) *Request for modification or rescission.* ( 1 ) Any person seeking a modification or a rescission of the Essential Agricultural Uses and Requirements regulations of part 2900 shall file a formal written request with the Director. The request shall contain a full and complete statement of all relevant facts pertaining to the circumstance, act or transaction that is the subject of the request and to the action sought. The request should state the special hardship, inequity or unfair distribution of burdens that will be prevented by making the modification or rescission.
( 2 ) If the petitioner wishes to claim confidential treatment for any information contained in the request or other documents submitted under this part 2901, such person shall file together with the document a second copy of the document from which has been deleted the information for which such person wishes to claim confidential treatment. The petitioner shall indicate in the original document that it is confidential or contains confidential information and may file a statement specifying the justification for non-disclosure of the information for which non-disclosure is sought. The Director shall consider such requests, and subject to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 and other applicable laws and regulations, shall treat such information as confidential.
( 3 ) The request shall be filed as a petition for rulemaking and treated in accordance with the procedures, as applicable, of 7 CFR part 1, subpart B.
( b ) *Institution of rulemaking.* Upon consideration of the request for modification or rescission and other relevant information received or obtained by the Director, the Director may institute rulemaking proceedings in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. 551 *et seq.* and applicable regulations.
( c ) *Denial of a modification or rescission.* If the Director ( 1 ) denies the request for modification or rescission in writing by notifying the petitioner that he does not intend to institute rulemaking proceedings as proposed and stating the reasons therefor, or
( 2 ) does not respond to a request for a modification or rescission in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section or
( 3 ) notifies the petitioner in writing that the matter is under continuing consideration and that no decision can be made at that time because of the inadequacy of available information, changing circumstances or other reasons as set forth therein, within 45 days of the date of the receipt thereof, or within such extended time as the Director may prescribe by written notice within that 45-day period, the request shall be considered denied for the purpose of review of such denial under § 2901.7.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 1944.524 [Reserved]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM HELMSTAR
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES' CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (UNAUDITED)
AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS (UNAUDITED) FOR THE INTERMIM
PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,679,454
<SECURITIES>                                 1,350,441
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,123
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         673,177
<DEPRECIATION>                                 415,504
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,288,898
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       674,960
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,387,968
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,062,928
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,489,615
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,861,580
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             237,902
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,371,965
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (7,885)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,364,080)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,364,080)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.43)


</TABLE>
#### Fairies London et al., Appellants, v. Gilbert Moore et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Carol R. Moore et al., Respondents, v. Fairies London, Appellant. (Action No. 2.)

In consolidated actions to recover damages for injury to person and property, -and for loss of services, etc., plaintiffs in Action No. 1 and defendant in Action No. 2 (the latter is one of the plaintiffs in Action No. 1) appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 20, 1967, which, as resettled by an order of said court dated March 19, 1968, *inter alia,*granted the motion of plaintiffs in Action No. 2, Carol and Gilbert Moore, to remove the actions from Civil Court of -the City of New York, Queens County, to the Supreme Court, Queens County, -and to amend their bill of particulars and the *ad damnum*clause of their -complaint. Order dated March 19, 1968, reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and said motion denied, without prejudice to renewal upon a proper showing by (1) a doctor’s affidavit of (a) a causal connection between the allegedly increased injury and the accident sued upon and (b) a course of treatment between the last date in 1963 when plaintiff ¡Carol Moore was treated for the accident-caused injuries and the date in 1965 when the herniated disc condition was first diagnosed; and (2) an affidavit by plaintiffs Moore as to the merits of the case and the delay in making their motion. Appeal from order dated June 20, 1967 dismissed as academic, without costs. That order was superseded by the order of March 19, 1968. The motion papers are deficient in that they do not contain (1) a proper showing by a doctor’s affidavit of (a) a causal connection between the injury and the accident and (b) a consistent course of treatment for the accident-caused injuries *(Northern Ins. Co. of N. Y.*v. *Kregsman,*26 A D 2d 648) and (2) an affidavit by plaintiffs Moore “ showing the merits of the ease, the reasons for the delay and the fact that the increase is warranted by reason of facts which have recently -come to the attention of the plaintiff [s] and excusing the failure or negligence necessitating the amendment so far as these facts are within the knowledge of the plaintiff [s] ” *(Koi*v. *P. S. & M. Catering Corp.,*15 A D 2d 775, 776). Although the alleged aggravation of Carol Moore’s condition was diagnosed in 1965, the motion to remove the actions, etc., was not made until 1967. Failure to explain this delay may be indicative of laches on the part of plaintiffs Moore. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.
#### § 28.122 Fee for practical classing examination.

The fee for the practical classing examination for cotton shall be determined as described in § 28.116. Any applicant who passes the examination may be issued a certificate indicating this accomplishment. Any person who fails to pass the examination may be reexamined. The fee for this practical reexamination will be determined as described in § 28.116.

[79 FR 67319, Nov. 13, 2014]
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**     I, Shai Even, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Alon USA Energy, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statements of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:          a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and          c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):          a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and          b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: November 14, 2006 By:  /s/ Shai Even    Shai Even    Chief Financial Officer
#### § 2903.8 Program application materials.

OEPNU will publish periodic program announcements to notify potential applicants of the availability of funds for competitive continuation grants. The program announcement will provide information about obtaining program application materials.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

KEVIN VALENTIN

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 15

- 3804

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed June 2, 2017

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Or ange County

, Jenifer M. Davis , Judge.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Susan A. Fagan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,

T allahassee, and Rebecca Rock

McG uigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM

.

We affirm Kevin Valentin’s sentence. See Young v. State

, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D1103

(Fla. 5th DCA May 12, 2017); St. Val v. State , 174 So. 3d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)

.

However, on remand, as the State properly concedes, Valentin shall be awarded twenty

days of additional jail credit.2

AFFIRMED and REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF SENTENCE.

COHEN, C.J. , ORFINGER and BERGER , JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 71440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29490]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than December 8, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (Michael E. Collins, Senior 
Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-
1521:
    1. Warburg Pincus Private Equity X, L.P.; Warburg Pincus X 
Partners, L.P.; Warburg Pincus X L.P.; Warburg Pincus & Co.; Warburg 
Pincus Partners, LLC Warburg Pincus X, LLC and Warburg Pincus LLC, all 
of New York, New York; to acquire voting shares of National Penn 
Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of 
National Penn Bank, both of Boyertown, Pennsylvania, and The Christiana 
Bank and Trust Company, Greenville, Delaware.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Glenda Wilson, Community 
Affairs Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
    1. The House Family Control Group (which consists of Verlene H. 
House Revocable Trust, Verlene H. House as trustee; White River 
Bituminous, Inc.; Edward House; Howard House; Dianne Lamberth; Marcus 
Lamberth; Lauren Lamberth Patterson, all of Batesville, Arkansas; and 
Lance Lamberth, San Francisco, California), Batesville, Arkansas, to 
acquire voting shares of First Community Bancshares, Inc., and thereby 
indirectly acquire voting shares of First Community Bank of Batesville, 
both of Batesville, Arkansas.


Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 18, 2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-29490 Filed 11-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### § 29.37 Designated market.

An auction market designated by the Secretary, under section 5 of the Act.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Michael J. Wagner, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Parent Company;

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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

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

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.



|                         |  |  |  |                        
|------------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: September 16, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Michael J. Wagner  
|                         |  |  |  | Michael J. Wagner      
|                         |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Arcelia Bermudez, Appellant, v Barbara B. Blum, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, en*544tered March 30, 1979, dismissing petitioner’s article 78 proceeding, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition reinstated and granted. At the fair hearing, after service of a notice of intent to discontinue public assistance, the New York City Department of Social Services presented one witness, whose function it was to place in evidence agency records. Thus, in support of its position that petitioner had, without good cause, failed to accept employment, thereby subjecting herself to a disqualification from a grant of public assistance for 30 days (18 NYCRR 385.7 [a]), the agency relied entirely upon documentary evidence. One of the documents noted that "applicant refused to try job. Said she never worked piece work.” The agency representative stated that the prospective employer was the source of that information. Petitioner has consistently taken the position that the prospective employer would not hire her because of her inexperience. As laudable as are the city agency’s efforts to place qualified assistance recipients in gainful employment, this determination cannot stand because of a lack of competent evidence to support the finding that petitioner was offered and refused to accept employment without good cause. *(Matter of Hagood v Berger,*42 NY2d 901.) While an administrative determination, after fair hearing, may be supported by hearsay, it may not be based entirely thereon. *(Matter of Ford v Dumpson,*47 AD2d 621.) Contrary to the agency’s contention, the case for refusal was not made from petitioner’s testimony. Moreover, the agency failed to comply with 18 NYCRR 358.9 (g), which requires the appearance at the hearing of the person who made the determination to disqualify or was responsible therefor. The failure of such person to appear deprived petitioner of the opportunity to cross-examine as to the meaning of the documents. *(Matter of Ford v Dumpson,*47 AD2d 621, *supra; Matter of Van Wagner v Van Lare,*86 Mise 2d 794.) We should note that our determination is not to be construed as requiring the appearance of the employer at the hearing. We realize how impractical and burdensome such a directive would be. Finally, petitioner’s claim for attorneys fees under section 1988 of title 42 of the United States Code, raised for the first time on appeal, and asserted against a State agency because of its interpretation of a State regulation, is without merit. (See *Matter of Bess v Toia,*66 AD2d 844.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Fein, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2530 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2530

   To improve transparency and efficiency with respect to audits and 
   communications between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 27, 2013

  Mr. Roskam introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To improve transparency and efficiency with respect to audits and 
   communications between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Taxpayer Transparency and Efficient 
Audit Act''.

SEC. 2. DEADLINE FOR RESPONSES TO TAXPAYER CORRESPONDENCE.

    Not later than 30 days after receiving any written correspondence 
from a taxpayer, the Internal Revenue Service shall provide a 
substantive written response. For purposes of the preceding sentence, 
an acknowledgment letter shall not be treated as a substantive 
response.

SEC. 3. TAXPAYER NOTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURES BY IRS OF TAXPAYER 
              INFORMATION.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after disclosing any 
taxpayer information to any agency or instrumentality of Federal, 
State, or local government, the Internal Revenue Service shall provide 
a written notification to the taxpayer describing--
            (1) the information disclosed,
            (2) to whom it was disclosed, and
            (3) the date of disclosure.
    (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if the Secretary of 
the Treasury, or the Secretary's designee, determines that such 
notification would be detrimental to an ongoing criminal investigation 
or pose a risk to national security.

SEC. 4. DEADLINE FOR CONCLUSION OF AUDITS OF INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS.

    Any audit of a tax return of an individual by the Internal Revenue 
Service shall be concluded not later than 1 year after the date of the 
initiation of such audit and the Internal Revenue Service shall not 
assess any tax with respect to which such audit relates after the 
conclusion of such audit.
                                 <all>
```