alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3560.70 Supplemental requirements for manufactured housing. ( a ) *Design requirements.* Manufactured housing must meet the requirements of 7 CFR part 1924, subpart A applicable to manufactured housing.
( b ) *Eligible properties.* The manufactured housing must include two or more housing units. The applicant will become the first owner purchasing the manufactured homes for purposes other than resale. The following exceptions may be made to this provision: ( 1 ) A housing proposal may include the purchase of the real property with existing manufactured housing which will be redeveloped with the placement of new manufactured homes.
( 2 ) A housing proposal may include the rehabilitation of existing manufactured housing only if the units to be rehabilitated are currently financed by the Agency. The proposal will include the results of the applicant's consultation with the manufacturer to determine if the proposed rehabilitation work will affect the structural integrity of the unit and, if so, the statement will include an explanation as to how.
( c ) *Terms.* The maximum loan amount will be determined in accordance with the requirements of § 3560.63. The amortization period and term of loans for manufactured housing will not exceed the lesser of the economic life of the housing being financed or 30 years.
( d ) *Security.* A mortgage or deed of trust will be taken on the entire property purchased or improved with the loan. The encumbered property must be covered under a standard real estate title insurance policy or attorney's title opinion that identifies the housing as real property and insures or indemnifies against any loss if the manufactured home is determined not to be part of the real property. The property must be taxed as real estate by the jurisdiction where the housing is located if such taxation is permitted under applicable law when the loan is closed.
( e ) *Special warranty requirements.* The general contractor or dealer-contractor, as applicable, must provide a warranty in accordance with the provisions of 7 CFR part 1924, subpart A. ( 1 ) The warranty must establish that the manufactured homes, foundations, positioning and anchoring of the units to their permanent foundations, and all contracted improvements, are constructed in conformity with applicable approved plans and specifications.
( 2 ) The warranty must include provisions that the manufactured homes sustained no hidden damage during transportation and, for double-wide units, that the sections were properly joined and sealed.
( 3 ) The general contractor or dealer contractor must warrant that the manufacturer's warranty is in addition to and does not diminish or limit all other warranties, rights, and remedies that the borrower or lender may have.
( 4 ) The seller of the manufactured homes must deliver to the borrower the manufacturer's warranty with an additional copy for RHS. The warranty must identify the units by serial number.
§ 3201.66 Cuts, burns, and abrasions ointments. ( a ) *Definition.* Products designed to aid in the healing and sanitizing of scratches, cuts, bruises, abrasions, sun damaged skin, tattoos, rashes and other skin conditions.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The Federal preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 84 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than July 23, 2012, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased cuts, burns, and abrasions ointments. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for items to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased cuts, burns, and abrasions ointments.
[76 FR 43817, July 22, 2011]
# C_2021093DE.01007601.xml

| 19.3.2021 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | C 93/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2021

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

C 93/76

---

Berichtigung der Entschließung des Rates zu einem strategischen Rahmen für die europäische Zusammenarbeit auf dem Gebiet der allgemeinen und beruflichen Bildung mit Blick auf den europäischen Bildungsraum und darüber hinaus (2021-2030)

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union C 66 vom 26. Februar 2021
  )

(2021/C 93/10)

Seite 19, Absatz „Prioritärer Bereich 3 — Lehrkräfte und Ausbildende“ Ziffer vi)

Anstatt

| „vi) | Schaffung von Netzwerken von Lehrerbildungseinrichtungen und Lehrerverbänden über die vorgeschlagenen ‚Erasmus Teacher Academies‘, um praxisbezogene Gemeinschaften zu fördern, Lernmöglichkeiten für Lehrende zu bieten, Innovationen zu fördern und nationale und europäische Lehrerausbildungsstrategien fachlich zu unterstützen.“ |
| --- | --- |

„vi)

Schaffung von Netzwerken von Lehrerbildungseinrichtungen und Lehrerverbänden über die vorgeschlagenen ‚Erasmus Teacher Academies‘, um praxisbezogene Gemeinschaften zu fördern, Lernmöglichkeiten für Lehrende zu bieten, Innovationen zu fördern und nationale und europäische Lehrerausbildungsstrategien fachlich zu unterstützen.“

muss es heißen:

| „vi) | Schaffung von Netzwerken von Lehrerbildungseinrichtungen über die vorgeschlagenen ‚Erasmus Teacher Academies‘, um praxisbezogene Gemeinschaften zu fördern, Lernmöglichkeiten für Lehrende zu bieten, Innovationen zu fördern und nationale und europäische Lehrerausbildungsstrategien fachlich zu unterstützen.“. |
| --- | --- |

„vi)

Schaffung von Netzwerken von Lehrerbildungseinrichtungen über die vorgeschlagenen ‚Erasmus Teacher Academies‘, um praxisbezogene Gemeinschaften zu fördern, Lernmöglichkeiten für Lehrende zu bieten, Innovationen zu fördern und nationale und europäische Lehrerausbildungsstrategien fachlich zu unterstützen.“.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                               ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Report of ZIM Corporation, a Canadian corporation
(the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jennifer North, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and
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/ Jennifer North
-------------------
 Jennifer North
Chief Financial Officer
June 28, 2006
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: September 4, 2014 D-42-14 

___________________________________

In the Matter of ROGER L. PAUL,

an Attorney.

COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL

STANDARDS, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner;

ROGER L. PAUL,

Respondent.

(Attorney Registration No. 1561596)

___________________________________

Calendar Date: August 11, 2014

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr., Lynch and Devine, JJ.

__________

Monica A. Duffy, Committee on Professional Standards,

Albany (Michael K. Creaser of counsel), for petitioner.

Corrigan, McCoy & Bush, PLLC, Rensselaer (Scott W. Bush of

counsel), for respondent.

__________

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1978. 

He maintains an office for the practice of law in the Village of

Northville, Fulton County.

By decision dated May 31, 2012, this Court suspended

respondent from the practice of law for two years, which

suspension was conditionally stayed (Matter of Paul, 95 AD3d 1647

[2012]). Respondent moves for termination of the stayed

suspension and provides a supporting affidavit indicating that he
-2- D-42-14 

has fully complied with the conditions of the stay. Petitioner

does not oppose the motion, which we now grant.

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr., Lynch and Devine, JJ.,

concur.

ORDERED that respondent's motion is granted, and the stayed

suspension imposed by this Court's decision dated May 31, 2012 is

terminated, effective immediately.

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
#### § 356.1 Property subject to forfeiture procedures.

This part sets forth procedures relating to the forfeiture of any plant, equipment, means of conveyance or other property[1] seized under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.*) or the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371 *et seq.*),[2] in possession (actual or constructive) of the United States Department of Agriculture, and subject to forfeiture under these Acts because of activities pertaining to the importation, exportation, or reexportation of terrestrial plants.

[49 FR 46336, Nov. 26, 1984]

###### Footnotes -
  356.1

[1] Under section 11(e)(4) of the Endangered Species Act (“Act”; 16 U.S.C. 1540(e)(4)) any such equipment and means of conveyance would be subject to forfeiture upon conviction of a criminal violation pursuant to section 11(b)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1540(b)(1)); however, such a plant may be subject to forfeiture regardless of whether a criminal conviction is obtained.

[2] Under section 5(a)(2) of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3374(a)(2)) USDA has authority to initiate forfeiture proceedings against all vessels, vehicles, aircraft, and other equipment used to aid in the importation or exportation of plants in a criminal violation of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 for which a felony conviction has been obtained if (a) the owner of such vessel, vehicle, aircraft, or equipment was at the time of the alleged illegal act a consenting part or privy thereto or in the exercise of due care should have known that such vessel, vehicle, aircraft, or equipment would be used in a criminal violation of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981, and (b) the violation involved the sale or purchase of, the offer of sale or purchase of, or the intent to sell or purchase plants. However, under section 5(a)(1) of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3474(a)(1) plants seized for violations of the Amendments are subject to forfeiture regardless of whether a civil penalty assessment or criminal conviction is obtained.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1303

DA RUI LI, Petitioner,

versus PETER D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A98-639-478)
Submitted: October 15, 2007 Decided: October 25, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead, New York, for Petitioner. David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Jennifer Paisner, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Da Rui Li, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In his petition for review, Li challenges the determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Li fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he seeks. Additionally, we uphold the denial of Li’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Li fails to show that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.- 3 - Li also seeks protection under the Convention Against Torture. Because he failed to raise this claim before the Board, we find that we have no jurisdiction to consider it. See8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000) (“A court may review a final order of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.”); Asika v. Ashcroft , 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied , 125 S. Ct. 861 (2005) (holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider an argument that was not raised before the Board). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135374 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135374 

 COA: 280799 

Gratiot CC: 06-005205-FH;

COREY A. NELSON, 06-005266-FH 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 26, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0211 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 19, 2008 

 Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: C.B., A MINOR

PETITION OF: A.B., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 457 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.B., A MINOR

PETITION OF: A.B., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 458 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.B., A MINOR

PETITION OF: A.B., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 459 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: C.B., A MINOR

PETITION OF: S.B., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 460 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.B., A MINOR

APPEAL OF: S.B., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 461 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.B., A MINOR

PETITION OF: S.B., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 462 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: Y.C., A MINOR

PETITION OF: S.B., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 463 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court
[457 EAL 2021, 458 EAL 2021, 459 EAL 2021, 460 EAL 2021, 461 EAL 2021, 462 EAL 

2021 and 463 EAL 2021] - 2

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of January, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 10
 Williams Partners GP LLC
Director Compensation Policy
Adopted November 29, 2005
Revised August 20, 2008
 Compensation of Directors
  I. Annual Compensation Package
  1.
    
    $50,000 cash;2.
    
    $25,000 in Restricted Units valued as of the grant date designated below; and3.
    
    $5,000 cash each for service on the conflicts and audit committees of the Board.
  II. Conflicts Committee Fees
   III. Other Compensation
  1.
    
    for a person first elected as a Non-Employee Director, a one-time grant of Restricted
Units valued at $25,000 on the date of election to the Board; and2.
    
    reimbursement for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with
attending Board and committee meetings and attending education programs relevant to their
duties as members of the Board.
 IV. Restricted Period




---



##### 



V. Interim Payment and Grant Dates and Proration
 Interim Payment and Grant Dates
    Proration
 
  VI. Other Provisions
**Exhibit 32.1**

**BERNARD CHAUS, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Bernard Chaus, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| **•** | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

 

| September 28, 2007 |   |   |                                               |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                         |   |   | /s/ Josephine Chaus                                |
|                    |   |   | Josephine Chaus                                    |
|                    |   |   | Chairwoman of the Board andChief Executive Officer |

 

 

----
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Southern Trust Securities Holding Corp., Inc. (the “Corporation”) each certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and the information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.




By:
/s/ Robert EscobioRobert EscobioChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerMay 20, 2010




This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document, and may not be disclosed, distributed or used by any person for any reason other than as specifically required by law.
#### § 29.2557 Subgrade.

Any grade modified by a special factor symbol.

[37 FR 13626, July 12, 1972. Redesignated at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984 and 51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
================================================================================
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


In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Nova Resources Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended August 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

   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:  October 16, 2006

/s/ Alexander Craven
-------------------------------------------
Alexander Craven, Principal Financial Officer
# L_2022035EN.01002101.xml

| 17.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 35/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 35/21

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2160 of 6 December 2021 amending Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999 concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 436 of 7 December 2021
  )

On page 44, Annex, entry 12 in the table concerning Abderrahim AL-KANI, third column headed ‘Names’:

for:

‘الرحيم الكاني عبد (Arabic spelling)’,

read:

‘عبد الرحيم الكاني (Arabic spelling)’.

---
#### § 319.8-25 Costs and charges.

The services of the inspector during regularly assigned hours of duty and at the usual places of duty shall be furnished without cost to the importer. The Plant Protection and Quarantine Programs will not assume responsibility for any costs or charges, other than those indicated in this section, in connection with the entry, inspection, treatment, conditioning, storage, forwarding, or any other operation of any character incidental to the physical entry of an importation of a restricted material.
149 So.2d 767

#### Joseph MALONE v. PLAISANCE WHOLESALE GROCERY et al.

No. 46544.

Feb. 18, 1963.

*1015Writ refused. Under the facts found hy the Court of Appeal, we find no error in- the judgment complained of.
#### § 2003.14 Field Offices.

Rural Development field offices report to their respective State Director and State Office Program Directors. State Directors may organizationally structure their offices based on the program workloads within their respective State. Field offices generally are patterned in a three or two tier program delivery structure. In a three tier system, Local offices report to an Area office, that reports to the State Office. In a two tier system, a “Local” or “Area” office reports to the State Office. Locations and telephone numbers of Area and Local Offices may be obtained from the appropriate Rural Development State Office.
#### Lottie Austern, appellee, v. Mandel Brothers, Inc., appellant.

Gen. No. 37,528.

Opinion filed November 5, 1934.

Altheimer, Mayer, Woods & Smith, for appellant; A. B. Manion, of counsel. No appearance for appellee.

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.