alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3570.66 Determining the maximum grant assistance. ( a ) *Responsibility.* State Directors are responsible for determining the applicant's eligibility for grant assistance.
( b ) *Maximum grant assistance.* Grant assistance cannot exceed the lower of: ( 1 ) Qualifying percentage of eligible project cost determined in accordance with § 3570.63(b);
( 2 ) Minimum amount sufficient to provide for economic feasibility as determined in accordance with § 3570.61(d); or
( 3 ) Either 50 percent of the annual State allocation or $50,000, whichever is greater, unless an exception is made by the RHS Administrator in accordance with § 3570.90.
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 13-40115 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JUAN PABLO PAZ-GUERRA, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:12-CR-1152-1
Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender ap p o i n t e d to represent Juan P ablo PazGuerra has moved for leave to withdraw a nd has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. C

alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United S tates v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 ( 5th Cir. 2011). Paz-Guerra has not filed a response. W e have r eviewed counsel’s brief a nd t h e r elevant portions o f the record r eflected t h erein. We

concur with counsel’s assessment that the a ppeal presents no n onfrivolous issue for appellate revi e w . A c c o rdingly, counsel’s motion for leave t o withdraw is U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Decem ber 17, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 13-40115 Document: 00512473783 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2013No. 13-40115

G RANTED, counsel i s excused from further responsibilities herein, a n d t h e APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 13-40115 Document: 00512473783 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2013
EXHIBIT 32.2
  CERTIFICATION
    PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
    PURSUANT
 TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  Form 10-K
  (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.  Dated January 27, 2009

/s/  WILLIAM
    R. HOLLINGERWilliam
    R. Hollinger
    Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
    (Principal Financial Officer)
#### In the Matter of American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Respondent-Appellant, v Tax Commission of the City of New York et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Determination of appeals from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on October 3, 1974, unanimously held in abeyance and the matter remanded to Justice Bowman for detailed findings in accordance with subdivision 2 of section 720 of the Real Property Tax Law. No opinion. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Ross, Silverman and Carro, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Leon Wolf, an Attorney, Respondent. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.

First Department,

April 10, 1980

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Nicholas C. Cooper*for petitioner.

*Leon Wolf,*respondent *pro se.*

OPINION OF THE COURT

*Per Curiam.*

Respondent was admitted to practice in the Second Department on June 28, 1932 and maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

*420In May of 1977, the respondent represented a client in the sale of his luncheonette. At the closing, respondent received $10,000 on behalf of his client and was to hold in escrow $1,500 for settlement of the New York State tax. He held the entire $10,000, and there was no indication of whether or not this amount was held in an escrow account.

In May of 1978, the client was informed that the sales tax release had been obtained, and he then requested the money respondent held. Respondent was then in Florida. His client met with repeated evasions from respondent.

The client then complained to the Grievance Committee, which referred the matter to Florida. As respondent was not practicing in Florida, there was no basis for action there.

Thereafter, the client referred the matter to the District Attorney’s office. Finally, respondent had a check sent to his client for the $10,000; this check was not drawn from an escrow account.

Petitioner, Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, after a hearing by a hearing panel, found respondent attorney guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 603.2 in that he violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 1-102(A) (4), DR 7-101(A) (3) and DR 9-102(B) (3) and (4).

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee brings this petition pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4(d) and section 90 of the Judiciary Law, seeking an order that the hearing panel’s report be confirmed, and that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law.

Respondent denies the findings of the hearing panel, annexes the check showing the return of the funds to the client, and contends that he has been seriously ill for the last six years and in and out of hospitals.

Although respondent may be suffering from illness, it was not of a type to affect his mental capacity or responsibility. It cannot serve as an excuse for conversion of a client’s funds.

The report of the hearing panel of the Departmental Disciplinary Committee is confirmed.

Respondent is disbarred, and the clerk is directed to strike respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law.

Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Birns, Fein and Markewich, JJ., concur.

*421Opinion and recommendation of the Departmental Disciplinary Committee confirmed and respondent disbarred from practice as an attorney and counselor at law in the State of New York, effective May 12,1980.
exv10w2






Exhibit 10.2




First Amendment to

the Sysco Corporation

2007 Stock Incentive Plan




     Section 4.2(g) of the Sysco Corporation 2007 Stock Incentive Plan is hereby amended by
deleting it in its entirety and replacing it with the following:



     (g) Vesting; Additional Terms. Except as set forth below and in Sections 3.3 and
5.11, and other than Options, SARs, Restricted Stock, Restricted Stock Units or Other Stock-Based
Awards conditioned upon the attainment of Performance Goals that relate to performance periods of
at least one fiscal year, no Award granted hereunder may vest in excess of 1/3 of the number of
shares subject to the Award per year for the first three years after the grant date. Unless the
Committee determines otherwise, the date on which the Committee adopts a resolution expressly
granting an Award shall be considered the day on which such Award is granted. The term of any
Award granted under the Plan will not exceed seven years from the date of grant. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, if before the expiration of an Option or SAR, the holder’s employment relationship
with the Company or a Subsidiary terminates as a result of retirement in good standing or
disability under the established rules of the Company then in effect, the Option or SAR will
remain in effect, vest and be exercisable in accordance with its terms as if the holder remained
an employee of the Company or Subsidiary. In the event of an Option or SAR holder’s death during
the term of his or her Option or SAR, all unvested Options and SARs will vest immediately and may
be exercised by the holder’s estate, or by the person to whom such right devolves from the holder
by reason of his or her death, at any time within three years after the date of the holder’s death
but in no event later than the original termination date of the Option or SAR. In no event may an
Option or SAR be exercised after three years following the holder’s death. With respect to all
other Awards, any unvested Awards shall immediately vest, and all restrictions pertaining to such
other Awards shall lapse and have no further effect, upon the holder’s death or retirement in good
standing or disability under the established rules of the Company then in effect, except as
otherwise provided by the Committee at grant of the Award. Upon the occurrence of a Change in
Control, all outstanding Options and SARs shall vest and become exercisable and all other
outstanding Awards shall vest and all restrictions pertaining to such other Awards shall lapse and
have no further effect.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this First Amendment to be executive effective as
of the 17th day of January, 2009.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	SYSCO CORPORATION

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Thomas P. Kurz
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Thomas P. Kurz 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Vice President, Deputy General
Counsel and Assistant Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF EDISON CONTROL CORPORATION AS OF AND FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JANUARY 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                         1037288
<SECURITIES>                                   3843763
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3419119
<ALLOWANCES>                                    320000
<INVENTORY>                                    5974302
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              15212086
<PP&E>                                         7908003
<DEPRECIATION>                                  962900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                32355957
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4338754
<BONDS>                                       13181678
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         22759
<OTHER-SE>                                    14567766
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  32355957
<SALES>                                       23875214
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              23875214
<CGS>                                         14717711
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4967361
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2234980
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 76780
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1133382
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1955162
<INCOME-TAX>                                    850000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1105162
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1105162
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .41
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Gloria C. Geherin, as Voluntary Administrator of the Estates of Edward W. Gilbert and Another, Deceased, Respondent, v Anthony V. Sylvester, as Commissioner of Cayuga County Department of Social Services, Appellant

Judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Following a fair hearing on the issue of petitioners’ eligibility for medical assistance, the State Commissioner of Social Services directed that the Cayuga County Department of Social Services provide medical assistance to petitioners. The county agency set up a program of medical assistance and directed that petitioners’ resources in excess of a $3,100 burial and nonmedical expense reserve be applied toward the cost of medical care incurred since April 1, 1977, the date of their application for medical assistance. Petitioners challenged this direction in a CPLR article 78 proceeding and Special Term ordered that $6,324.36 from petitioners’ resources be paid to petitioners’ daughter to repay money she advanced for petitioners’ medical care from January 1, 1977 to March 30, 1977, and that $2,500 be paid to petitioners’ attorneys for representation at the fair hearing. Without considering the merits, we reverse on the jurisdictional ground that petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. Section 358.4 (subd [a], par [3]) of title 18 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York provides that petitioners are entitled to a fair hearing before the State Commissioner of Social Services on the issue of disposal of their resources. The decision of the commissioner at the first hearing dealt only with eligibility for medical assistance. Cayuga County’s subsequent direction concerned disposal of petitioners’ assets, for which petitioner has not yet sought a fair hearing. It is not uncommon to have several fair hearings on different aspects of a claim (see *Sockin v Overcash,*45 AD2d 717). CPLR 7801 (subd 1) provides that a determination must be "final” before being subjected to CPLR article 78 review. When there are further administrative steps available to secure a change in result, a party must pursue them before going to court (Siegel, New York Practice, § 558, p 779). The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies serves several important functions: first, it conserves judicial resources; second, it protects the integrity of administrative hearings and appeals *(Matter of Harmon v Nenni,*46 AD2d 993, app dsmd 38 NY2d 847; *Matter of Richards v Mangum,*35 AD2d 124, 126; 2 Cooper, State Administrative Law, pp 562-566; Jaffee, Judicial Control of Administrative Action, p 424); and third, it insures that the issues receive the benefit of the experience and expertise of the agency *(Matter of Buffalo Gen. Hosp. v Sipprell,*33 *992AD2d 977). (Appeal from judgment of Cayuga Supreme Court—CPLR art 78.) Present—Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Doerr and Moule, JJ.
EXHIBIT 23.01



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



      We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
No. 333-61291 on Form S-3, Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement Nos.
333-59999, 333-73025, 333-78027, 333-81229 and 333-84119 on Form S-3,
Registration Statement No. 333-72005 on Form S-4, Amendment No. 1 to
Registration Statement No. 333-75995 on Form S-4, Amendment No. 4 to
Registration Statement No. 333-69819 on Form S-3, Post-Effective Amendment No. 2
on Form S-8 to Registration Statement No. 333-85101 on Form S-4, and
Registration Statement No. 333-75741 on Form S-8 of Adelphia Communications
Corporation, of our report dated March 29, 2000, appearing in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Adelphia Communcations Corporation for the year ended December
31, 1999.




DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 29, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                         5,446
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  22,420
<ALLOWANCES>                                   5,468
<INVENTORY>                                    34,226
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               59,346
<PP&E>                                         5,230
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,535
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 69,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          22,047
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       69
<OTHER-SE>                                     40,072
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   69,000
<SALES>                                        197,446
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               197,446
<CGS>                                          148,690
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  34,617
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               911
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,258
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                10,970
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2,654
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            8,316
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   8,316
<EPS-BASIC>                                  1.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.39


</TABLE>
§ 400.207 Representative licensing and certification. ( a ) A Contractor must maintain twenty-five (25) licensed and certified Contractor Representatives.
( b ) A Contractor's Representative who solicits, sells and services FCIC policies or represents the Contractor in solicitation, sales or service of such policies must hold a license as issued by the State or States in which the policies are issued, which license authorizes the sales of insurance in any one or more of the following lines: ( 1 ) Multiple peril crop insurance;
( 2 ) Crop hail insurance;
( 3 ) Casualty insurance;
( 4 ) Property insurance;
( 5 ) Liability insurance; or
( 6 ) Fire insurance and allied lines. The Contractor must submit evidence, satisfactory to the Corporation, verifying the type of State license held by each Representative and the date of expiration of each license.
( c ) A Contractor's Representative must have achieved certification by the Corporation for each crop upon which the Representative sells and services insurance.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2301 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2301

To suspend temporarily the duty on synthetic quartz or synthetic fused 
                                silica.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 16, 2006

  Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mrs. Clinton) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on synthetic quartz or synthetic fused 
                                silica.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON SUBSTRATES OF SYNTHETIC 
              QUARTZ OR SYNTHETIC FUSED SILICA.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by striking heading 
9902.70.06 and inserting the following:

``      9902.70.06      Substrates of       Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         synthetic quartz                                                   31/2008
                         or synthetic
                         fused silica
                         imported in bulk
                         or in forms or
                         packages for
                         retail sale
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         7006.00.40)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
2006-0550.

#### State v. Boczar.

Ashtabula App. No. 2004-A-0063, 2005-Ohio-6910. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated at page 2 of the court of appeals’ Judgment Entry filed March 6, 2006:

“Whether R.C. 4511.19(D)(4)(b), providing that the results of field sobriety tests are admissible if the officer administered the tests in substantial compliance with the testing standards, is constitutional.”

Resnicic and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent.

The conflict cases are *State v. Robinson,*Fairfield App. No. 2004-CA-45, 160 Ohio App.3d 802, 2005-Ohio-2280, and *State v. Hall,*Licking App. No. 2004-CA-115, 163 Ohio App.3d 90, 2005-Ohio-4271.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles H. Brown, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme *904Court, Suffolk County, rendered June 21,1978, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Although it was error for the trial court to permit cross-examination of the defendant regarding a prior assault that he had committed against the victim in the instant case, without giving a limiting instruction to the jury on the use of such testimony, the totality of the proof against the defendant overwhelmingly established his guilt. There was no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had the error complained of not occurred. Therefore, said error must be considered harmless (see *People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230; *People v Cook,*42 NY2d 204, 208-209; *People v Perez,*36 NY2d 848, 849-850). We have considered the other contentions raised by the defendant and have found them to be without merit. Damiani, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
32.1





Certification of Principal
Executive Officer


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 Quarterly Report
of SRKP 3, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.





/s/ Richard A. RappaportRichard
      A. RappaportPrincipal
      Executive OfficerJuly
      29, 2009
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

*May 10, 2006*

[Cite as *05/10/2006 Case Announcements,*2006-Ohio-2226.]

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

2006-0257.

#### Miller v. First Internatl. Fidelity & Trust Building, LTD.

Lucas App. No. L-05-1311, 2006-Ohio-187. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that no conflict exists. This cause is therefore dismissed.

Resnick, Pfeifer, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., Lundberg Stratton and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: July 29, 2015

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Lora Strine, EPA

SUBJECT: July 24, 2015 Phone Call Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing 

Power Plants

SUMMARY

A phone call was held between EPA and Dave Klemp, State of Montana on July 24, 2015 to 

discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Clean Power Plan for 

Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

State of Montana

Dave Klemp

US EPA

Lora Strine